[Arnt]

The Cloudflare posting was by Matthew Prince, who's an officer of a public company. Misleading the public about the company would be unlawful for him.

The blog posting says, in part, that unprecedented things were posted to Kiwi Farms, and that they've contacted the police in several jurisdictions about these things. The police keeps records, so if that were a lie it would be the kind to be very easily shown to be false in front of a judge. It would also be simple to avoid that kind of specific sentence in the blog posting, so you may be quite confident that the statement is true.

Which then means that Cloudflare will stand by its customers through any shitstorm, except if the shitstorm manages to goad the customer into doing something that warrants contacting the police.

[yanderekko]

>Misleading the public about the company would be unlawful for him.

Do you really believe this? Or rather, even if it's unlawful, who do you think will hold him accountable for this? Obviously CF should report some stuff to the police as minimal CYA, but even if they didn't who's going to subpoena these records? I guess Moon might have cause for a defamation suit or something here but obviously it's unlikely to reach this point in a courtroom.

[Arnt]

I have it on good legal authority that if lies are to be told, something factual and disprovable like those references to police, then one arranges to have them be told by someone in a suitable department rather than by an accountable officer. Press, marketing, something.

Because in this case, accountable really means it.

[peyton]

I don’t have a horse in this race but I must’ve missed this “no bluffing” law in the Delaware Code…

[evrydayhustling]

IANAL, but the law you are talking about is "no fraud", and it's not Delaware code it's the SEC. When a public company officer lies about issues that could impact the price - and these interactions with law enforcement and regulation def qualify - they could cause people to misvalue the company.