Why are they required to have committed a crime? Cloudflare isn't the government, why do you believe they're obligated to serve 8chan?
Cloudflare took down one website that was directly related to a major tragedy that cost people their lives. If you want to complain about that go ahead, but I don't care. I don't allow people to use my websites to spread that kind of hate, and I have no problem with Cloudflare doing the same in extreme circumstances.
The original comment had to do with whether we should trust Cloudflare more than Facebook. If they as a company want to make editorial decisions, that's fine, but the reality is that also means they are not content agnostic. Interestingly enough, they provide services for known spammers and other shady internet operations.
As to whether 8chan 'caused' those abhorrent crimes, I couldn't say, any more than 'violent video games' caused them. I view such crimes as having a root cause of some form of mental illness, which does not (imo) relieve the doers of culpability.
The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted.
Here's one of their statements about free speech from six years ago. It's essentially what I've always thought of as their brand.
It's sad to see them compromise their principles, but sometimes it only takes one little Twitter mob to make people back down. That's why it's reasonable to question their character.
My personal impression was that they did not surrender to a mob, but that the mob made them look closer to what they were hosting. I am not saying it is better, this is just my personal impression.
> Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic?
They may want to claim it, one way or the other, as part of their IPO filing so that potential investors have some idea of liability risks with the company.
I have no reason to doubt that the CEO believes in free speech. Many people share this belief.
He did buckle, but we're only human. But did the pressure come from an angry mob on twitter, as most people assume, or from some guys wearing shades and an earpiece?
It is not about CF being forced to serve them, it is about balance, honestly I am fine with this take-down, but this cannot be dismissed as just being private individuals with private choices. This was obviously in their freedom to do, and it is not for me to say whether it was wrong or not (I actually quite like CF), but if stuff like this become a pattern then things become problematic.
It would either mean that the laws are insufficient or that the market is overreaching.
Cloudflare took down one website that was directly related to a major tragedy that cost people their lives. If you want to complain about that go ahead, but I don't care. I don't allow people to use my websites to spread that kind of hate, and I have no problem with Cloudflare doing the same in extreme circumstances.