[moomin]

The problem with your argument is that CloudFlare didn’t act to benefit ordinary citizens, it acted to protect its shareholders from a material risk to the company. It’s always been the case that businesses have to choose who they do business with and that clients can take their business elsewhere if they don’t like how a company behaves, very much including demanding that other clients are dropped.

Companies started acting like they shouldn’t need to know what their clients are doing only 20 years ago and it’s given us widespread counterfeiting, scam robocalls and DDoS attacks. Of course they want to continue doing it, because they’re making money hand over fist. Doesn’t mean we should let them.

[brnt]

> Companies started acting like they shouldn’t need to know what their clients are doing only 20 years ago

Only _some_ companies, and for obvious reasons: there is good money to be made in shady business. Playing the naivité card is apparently enough to convince some. But it's just a card, they know precisely why they are doing it, and supporting free speech ain't it.

[alexvoda]

Than lets go one level closer to the user.

Should ISPs proactively block certain websites to all clients under threat of leaving of a group of clients?

I think we want some companies to behave like utilities and be agnostic.

[moomin]

Honestly, there’s quite a few firms that want to have their cake and eat it on this one. Not just internet firms, but credit card companies. And I’m 100% not onboard with that.