[ntuch]

> hate speech" is not a class.

As a hacker, do you not see that there's a security vulnerability here that's big enough to drive a truck through? You simply label whatever you don't like as hate speech, then you're magically allowed to censor it.

[eli_gottlieb]

As a libertarian, do you not see there's a security vulnerability here that's big enough to drive a truck through? You just put all speech under the control of private monopolists you control, and then you're magically allowed to censor whatever you don't like!

;-)

[walterstucco]

Cloudflare can and will censor everything they want without the need for labels

When you subscribe to their service you agree to their terms

The right to be published or served through a gateway is not an universal human right

[daxorid]

> The right to be published or served through a gateway is not an universal human right

This is demonstrably not true; it just requires the victim to be a member of a protected class. Private businesses can not legally deny service to ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, or gay people.

The law determined many decades ago that some people are more equal than others.

[oh_sigh]

> Private businesses can not legally deny service to...

They can deny service to those people. They just can't do it because of their membership in those protected classes.

[walterstucco]

> This is demonstrably not true; it just requires the victim to be a member of a protected class.

What's a protected class?

What I mean is: I'm from Italy, Europe, what is a protected class here may not be a protected class where Cloudflare operates.

The only protected classes are those that Cloudflare decided are protected.

You can't force them to publish for example nazi propaganda because it comes from a disabled person.

[ocdtrekkie]

What about the telephone company? Can AT&T cut off phone service to groups of people they politically dislike?

[cr0sh]

I don't believe they can. But they are also a common carrier, unlike ISPs and similar. Once ISPs become defined as common carriers, then the argument will have more merit. But expect that to happen anytime soon, because the big guys like Comcast and Cox don't want to allow anyone and everyone to have access to their infrastructure.

[ocdtrekkie]

All I'm trying to highlight here is that our government already does have some limits on what infrastructure companies can do to shut off service to customers. I feel that Internet infrastructure companies like Cloudflare should have at least as much responsibility to be content neutral as a phone company, and I do hope the law catches up here.

I certainly don't think it would be "unconstitutional" to bar infrastructure companies from moderating content, like we already do with telcos.

[walterstucco]

> I feel that Internet infrastructure companies like Cloudflare

Cloudflare it's not an internet infrastructure company

It's a service

[walterstucco]

We are not talking about cutting the internet connection, we are talking about terms of service.

Don't use Cloudflare, host your server behind your DSL line and write whatever you want.