[6c737133]

lol inevitably, the "muh censorship" and the "muh 1FA rights!!!" comments are always the most entertaining, and least informed comments on these subjects

CF has *no power to censor anyone*

Refusing to provide FREE DDoS Protection, and refusing to FREELY CACHE vitriol, are not "censorship"!

Nor are either of those actions an infringement on any American's rights as defined by the 1st Amendment [friendly reminder that there are nations, other than America, in the world]

Sure - CF are not content moderators ... but, neither are they "a public utility provider" ... they are, however, a *for-profit commercial enterprise*, and as such, they get to choose who they DO, or DO NOT, do business with

If you think any of the sites offloaded by CF deserve the free DDoS protection and caching services CF was providing - by all means, spin up some servers and provide it to them yourself - you have that right.

[_8j50]

I agree with some of what you said but even banning someone from say HN is censorship. It just means you prevent them from saying something, they can bypass your censorship or find a different platform but banning for the cause of restricting content is censorship even if the censored can still get services elsewhere. Also, for the utility part, neither are ISPs technically so by that it just means they want the same telco rules to apply to them.

[jackson1442]

Exactly. Providers have Freedom of Association, and I argue that everyone should have freedom _from_ being doxxed and harassed.