zlacker

>>jgraha+(OP)
While I'm sure few of us would have controversial domains, let's remember that Cloudflare have removed the DNS records of sites that they didn't like in the past[0].

[0] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

>>conver+9q1
Very true, but the risk of using them should be weighed against the risk of not using them. Don't forget that pretty much all other registrars were much more eager than Cloudflare to shut down Daily Stormer, and expose you to Zoho-type risk that Cloudflare claims to mitigate.

>>Meekro+3x1
Except that Cloudflare terminated Daily Stormer after allowing terrorist groups to operate under the guise of "free speech":

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/cloudflare-and-...

>>aestet+uy1
Can anyone explain why they downvoted me instead of just downvoting?

>>aestet+KC1
I didn’t, but I can provide some advice since I see this type of comment and nobody really gets advice on this kind of thing. Your comment wasn’t inflammatory — it was factual. However, it only contained a fact, and in that fact, the wording sounded like you were being not only factual, but perhaps a little too stuck to your guns.

Controversial comments on HN are generally appreciated as long as they have both commentary and supporting evidence. The commentary part is key. Many of us have read HN for years and are very well aware of these events. Thus, posting about them isn’t news to us — it’s just noise. A new take on it or an interpretation from you is always welcome, but just “spreading the news,” is somewhat the antithesis of Hacker News in the comments.