[grzm]

> There's clearly some undefined standard here, known only in the head of Cloudflare's CEO.

Cloudflare was quite clear on the criteria they used.

> The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

You can disagree with that criteria, and you can question whether this is the true criteria Cloudflare used. For the later, you need to provide evidence in opposition to this case.

[abtinf]

Yes, they were extremely clear on the criteria they used: the CEOs emotional state.

“Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision.“

https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to...

[grzm]

As I mentioned above (in another subthread), thanks for the link!

[throwaway324083]

ok, fair enough. but the parent to my post said this was about the content.. it's clearly not the content, even that tidbit is clear it's not about the content.

[grzm]

If you're going to weigh in on a contentious issue, particularly if you're going to correct someone, please take the time to do so with some evidence, regardless of what any other poster has commented. You can't control other's comments, but you certainly can control your own. That includes refraining from further muddying the issue.