Hacker News Reader

Can you provide references to this claim?

If you've read the news in the past month, CloudFlare removed its DDoS protection and caching service from KiwiFarms based on series of false reports, essentially taking the site offline.

But didn't cloudfare backtrack on that and state they don't want to be moderators of content because they want to be seen as a utility? They used the example of a phone company who doesn't care/not liable if you say naughty things on the phone. They want to be like the phone company.

No, they didn't they still haven't restored service, and they cut it based on completely fake reports, without any warning or communication. They're not trustworthy.

Ok, well I don't know the details beyond what I read: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/sep/01/cloudflar...

At least it's somewhat positive they "sort of" backtracked? To be clear, I'm in favour of these providers acting like utilities and staying out of content disputes.

It seems to me like they only do this in very very rare circumstances, maybe 3 times ever? And only when there's the threat of physical harm.

It's rare enough that the CEO publishes a blog post every time they do it.

"This is a hard case and we would caution anyone from seeing it as setting precedent."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com