zlacker

>>jgraha+(OP)
While Cloudflare appears to be doing things that are meant to help everyday people, I can't help but be suspicious. This is an organization that sticks with the "we don't host" bullshit line when web sites serve up Trojans which pretend to be Adobe Flash installers. While there's more subjectivity involved with dealing with hosting the content of spammers, there is zero subjectivity involved with clear and obvious phishing sites.

First, anyone with the tiniest modicum of common sense can tell that these pretend Flash sites are absolutely not in the slightest way legitimate content.

Second, providing services in any way, shape or form is, in fact, hosting. Providing DNS? It's hosting. Providing a cached version of the site? Hosting.

So if they want to be in the business of pretending to be not-hosting, then they have to stop providing services that without which web sites would cease to function. Are they now going to claim that they're not providing meaningful services to domains registered through them, and therefore they should not be responsible for people who are doing illegal things?

Probably.

>>johnkl+zv
On the contrary, decisions by not-my-actual-server-host to get involved in content disputes is what would drive me away as a customer. What having the tiniest modicum of common sense would tell you is that holding each middleman responsible for content they pass through is ridiculous. It is definitely a way to enforce a level of censorship that didn't work when you went to the true source of the data. Hosting someone's DNS, passing their data over your pipes, building the keyboard they type with, registering their domain, etc is not the same as supporting the content. I think you're intentionally confusing the issue by equating hosting one type of service with another.