Hacker News Reader

Your description of what happened is a bit hyperbolic as well. I remember this event, but the details are pretty fuzzy. IIRC, it stirred up so much controversy precisely because no US laws were broken. So saying "engage in Neo-nazi hate crime and promote real world harm" is inaccurate. The content was garbage, no doubt about it. But let's not get hyperbolic in the other direction either.

View on HN

> no US laws were broken

People keep confusing private organizations and governments. They don't need to break any laws to become undesirable customers, and any private company that tolerates these kind of customers does so at their own discretion. The world doesn't owe them a right to be awful people, but they can still be awful if they accept the consequences.

I'm not confusing anything. Cloudflare's stance was that they'd serve anything that wasn't illegal, and one day they decided to change that. Of course that's their prerogative, but I'm just explaining why it stirred up so much controversy.

The problem I have with CloudFlare is that their definition of "undesirable customer" includes forums engaging in hateful, virulent, but ultimately legal speech, but does not include forums that are selling methamphetamine and stolen credit card numbers.

"no US laws were broken" != lacking in harmful activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com