[derefr]

> if TDS genuinely did falsely and sincerely claim that Cloudflare supports them, then Prince could and should have simply asked them to remove that claim.

The damage of libel is reputational damage. Getting the libelous claim retracted after the claim has been seen by the public doesn't undo or erase the damage the claim does. Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim, if you want to regain the lost reputation.

[leereeves]

If TDS did make such a claim publicly enough to cause reputational damage, there should be evidence we can all see.

Anyone know where that evidence is?

[mjevans]

Assuming good faith on all parties (including in this discussion)...

The public posting was probably on their website, which is now likely blackholed due to being DDoSed after they were no longer protected by a CDN.

The Internet is broken when some terrorists can get together and decide to blockaid someone else; even if that someone else is nearly universally agreed upon to vile.

I agree with that user on Twitter that wants to make (the racist) individuals /infamous/ so that they can receive the blowback they deserve for their public behavior.

[cestith]

It doesn't even have to cause reputational damage yet I don't think. IANAL, but the contracts one signs with this sort of company tends to include things like not claiming endorsement of the content by the provider.

[genon]

> Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim

Yes, that something is called suing for libel and proving it is libel in a court.

Simply claiming something is libel (which Prince doesn't even do in his blog post) doesn't make it libel.

> Usually you have to do something drastic to actively disprove the libelous claim, if you want to regain the lost reputation.

Because of Cloudflare's action there are now 1000 times as many people, including myself, who are aware of TDS's claim who otherwise wouldn't have heard of it.