Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwaway324083 3193 days ago
Cloudflare has no issue providing service to phishing sites: https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/10/07/phishers-using...

They have no issue providing service to ISIS: https://www.theepochtimes.com/anti-terrorist-hacker-group-re...

The CEO literally said it was because he felt like terminating DailyStormer. Why is it suddenly wrong to repeat his own words?

Instead you make it sound like this is about the content, something cloudflare clearly doesn't have an issue with.

1 comments

> The CEO literally said it was because he felt like terminating DailyStormer.

Do you have a quote where the CEO says this? Your statement gives the impression that this was nothing more than a whim. As I pointed out below, according to their own statement on the matter, that's not the case:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15350723

I find it bizarre that you repeatedly link to the sanitized corporate blog. The CEO has explicitly stated it was pure whim: “Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision.”

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

Thank you for providing a link to support what the other poster commented.

I've provided the link I have for two reasons:

* it's a link I know about that's relevant to the discussion

* it is from Cloudflare themselves, so the chance of it being a misquote (accidental or otherwise) is less likely. I don't have a knee-jerk instinct to reject official statements as issued in bad faith without other evidence.

I repeatedly linked likely for the same reason you have: I saw something I thought was misrepresentative or misinformed more than once.

I'm thankful for the link because I can use that to alter my understanding of the event. There's a quote that's sometimes attributed to Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind."[0] That's something I endeavor to do.

[0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

I'll also admit to a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the use of a throwaway account in a contentious discussion. I can understand the use of throwaways to protect identity, but in that case the standard should be higher: they should really be bringing something substantial to the discussion, not just repeating talking points.

Thanks again for the link. That's useful.