zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
Whenever I read stories of big tech making decision to destroy some digital asset by taking decisions like this or banning people from their accounts (read gmail, google drive, etc.) It makes me shiver. They can put a brick wall in front of anyone's life/business.

>>firstS+fI1
I'm okay with removing someone from the internet if their business is to harass and dox people.

>>manuel+zI1
Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.

>>firstS+eJ1
There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.

>>HereIG+a32
Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!

>>jjuliu+V52
Well that kind of is important if you want to force it offline legally!

>>HereIG+Ci2
It's perfectly legal for one to opt not to host something, or provide DDoS protection for it, for any reason they choose.

>>jjuliu+Gl2
This is what is so scary about the hysterical fictional narrative misinforming so many. people generally don't have the first clue about the stakes and what really happened.

They weren't being hosted by CF, they were getting protection against illegal DDoS attacks. CF DDoS protection is an infrastructure service. Infrastructure level services picking and choosing who is allowed and not allowed, is a very dangerous thing. Such action quickly risk unraveling the entire net.