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
That's misleading. They removed the records of one site. Not "sites". And they did it because that site was claiming that CloudFlare providing them services meant that CloudFlare secretly supported their (hate-based) ideology.

And it's also worth pointing out that CloudFlare wasn't the only company terminating services for Storm Front. GoDaddy dropped them, then Google dropped them (and their YouTube account), then Tucows dropped them after just a few hours, and then finally CloudFlare dropped them.

Or to put it another way, CloudFlare has dropped one single site. Pretty much any other competing service will have dropped numerous sites. CloudFlare's dropping of The Daily Stormer is really only interesting in that it was a violation of CloudFlare's previously-stated policies of only dropping clients that are breaking the law.

>>eridiu+iy1
You failed to mention that the decision to drop them was made unilaterally by the CEO, and he said it was because he woke up in a bad mood that day. That was why people were talking about it; all you have to do is get on the bad side of someone at the company and they'll try to effectively erase you from the internet, and people will defend it by saying "it's a private business, they can't be forced to host anyone". It was a very visible case of a gatekeeper to a large portion of the internet showing that they're willing to decide what information people can see.

>>dx87+GB1
> all you have to do is get on the bad side of someone at the company and they'll try to effectively erase you from the internet

This is such ridiculous hyperbole and willfully ignores the reality of what Storm Front is and what they stand for. The CEO absolutely made the right call and Cloudflare has done just fine since then.