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
I appreciate that these decisions can seem easy, but broadly do you want a private company deciding what can be on the internet, or do you want that decision made by a judge with due process?

>>zackbl+Fz
Matt Prince already decided "what can be on the internet" when he banned Daily Stormer. As far as Cloudflare is concerned, that ship already sailed.

>>daxori+nb1
That's completely different really. They just stopped proxying their traffic. Daily Stormer could continue on, assuming they pay enough to handle the traffic.

Turning off your domain name is a different story. You are sunk until you can regain control of it.