[mikeash]

I don't understand your last paragraph. CloudFlare isn't a necessary service for publishing stuff online. If they tightened up their rules, that wouldn't be a world where someone else dictates what you can say or believe.

Free speech doesn't require private entities to host or publish regardless of content, and it's totally consistent to both advocate for free speech and advocate that entities not make certain kinds of speech. For example, I think the KKK should be allowed to say all the hateful things they say, and I also think the KKK should close up shop and stop bothering everybody.

[LeifCarrotson]

I was drawing parallels; Cloudflare's open support for all websites is meritorious in the same way that freedom of speech and religion are meritorious. The temptation to regulate it has consequences which are analogous to limiting speech or religion.

And no, it wouldn't dictate what you could say or believe, but it can help you say it. And if you need to say something that a powerful entity doesn't want said, they can protect you from DDoS and other attacks.

It's one thing to advocate that entities not make certain kinds of speech - by all means, please advocate away! But CloudFlare is an assistant to speech, not just an advocate. The moment you start making rules and decisions about what you enable, you open yourself up to the human possibility of making wrong rules and decisions. And that means it's better to not make the rules in the first place. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and all that.

[mikeash]

I don't get this at all. Why shouldn't CloudFlare make rules? So what if they get it wrong sometimes? There are plenty of alternatives. Not having any rules about what you'll host seems crazy.

Free speech means that you can say whatever you want, but it does not mean that you can get others to help you say it. If they want to help then fine, but if they don't want to help you that's not a free speech issue.

[LeifCarrotson]

They should consider what it would be like to live in an alternate universe where they were a consumer of their service. Not just being a customer themselves (that would be "give the customer everything, and pay him for the privilege"), but what would the rest of the world look like - would the company be in business, would there be negative externalities, etc.

For the reasons described, the thought experiment would (in my mind) suggest that there should be no speech restrictions, so that's the action they should take. Or you could describe it as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[heinrich5991]

It's hard to host a website if you don't have the support of CloudFlare or something similar, DoS attacks get you off hosting providers pretty quickly.

[jamespo]

Not only are the alternatives to CF as you acknowledge but the number of sites hit by DOS attacks is low in the grand scheme of things.

[nitrogen]

The sites most in need of free speech protection probably also need more DoS protection (see DoSes of GitHub, for example).