[stevenicr]

but Cloudlfare isn't really selling the domains- they are essentially registering them and leasing to you.. with the ability and will to backtrack on that.

and cloudlfare is no longer the free speech champion they were many moons ago - in fact they have become a 'turn off the speech of those who concern them or others' kind of place.

Using their services is contributing to a less open internet.

[flangola7]

What utter rubbish. Cloudflare hosts 4chan, phishing sites, pirate streams, fake government ID producers, malware delivery, and scammers. If that bar is still too high then whatever content our hypothetical wanker is seeking to host is either very harmful, very illegal, or both.

[stevenicr]

I have proof, it's not 'rubbish' but truth thank you. (see other comments replied with links and read them)

your statement of "Cloudflare hosts 4chan..."

I did a whois and it says 4chan DNS is CONSTELLIX - I'm pretty sure that's not cloudflare, but I admit I could be wrong on that (I do not know all of CF's nameservers) - (also they publicly booted 8chan, (maybe you did not know this) so similar others I would assume also lost thier ddos protect from CF)

If you have proof they protect the other kinds of sites you mention then it would not surprise me to see them all pulled from CF, they are not the free speech champion they were 7 years ago.

[stevenicr]

most of what you stated seems to run afoul of their stated "We may block or remove any content we determine":

Infringes on intellectual property rights;

Contains, installs, or disseminates any active malware, or uses our platform for exploit delivery (such as part of a command and control system);

Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public.

( https://www.cloudflare.com/trust-hub/abuse-approach/ )

Perhaps you are thinking of the old cloudflare pre-2017

[natpalmer1776]

Do you have any additional information on the first claim you made? I transferred my domain from google domains to cloudflare and this sounds quite concerning to me.

[stevenicr]

They did a 180 in 2019 - DDG search 'Terminating Service for 8Chan' and 'Blocking Kiwifarms'

[NicoJuicy]

That's not a 180, but a business decision when going live on stock exchange.

Still doing that would be somewhat controversial and would be a liability for the stock ( + give a wrong impression for normal investors = not in IT)

[stevenicr]

"but a business decision when going live on stock exchange." - I agree - and ain't nothin' wrong with that - be a sell out, and get that paper, lots of it!

But it IS a 180 - at least for those of us who watched the early days of cloudlfare, and how they really championed the whole free speech / we are dumb pipe / we don't block things.. way of pushing back on people and org's who demanded they block and censor things..

a lot of people gave massive goodwill to the brand, and were unaware of the changes (see the other comments here where many here were still under the impression they provided services to these and other sorts of things)

I agree it could be a liability for the stock - sure - so let's just be honest about what they are now - a semi-censor machine, not too different from godaddy - who also became a slave to wall st and those who use it to push agendas - godaddy is no longer the company that Bob (and many other OGs) created, and Cloudflare is no longer the thing it was.

Supporting either of these places today is supporting the censoring of the web by a few, and with consolidated power at this point as well.

If you own stock in it, then I'm sure you'd like it that way - and I don't blame you if you are on that side of the glass.

[NicoJuicy]

I am not really sure how long you think a US company ( or any) can ignore block requests.

Even the most obscure ones are playing wackamole with edge cases in certain countries.

Ps. Yes, I own stock in it. It's not about "I like it that way", it's just that i don't see it as possible in combo with being a big company.

[stevenicr]

"how long you think a US company ( or any) can ignore block requests." - Funny thing is I posted about this issue with cloudflare many moons ago when there quite a few articles boohooing CF - many from euro / uk - protect the children type things.

At the time I suggested that Cf should get ahead of the issue by splitting up the company and the infrastructure - so they could have a CF_UK and a CF_US and CF_Whatever - bifurcating the services as each country and area starts crafting more and more demands.

Big companies often do manage to do business in many parts of the world and have different ways of managing business in one place different than the next.

It's strange how highly controversial web sites can exist with ICAAN not prohibiting domain names, and sites can usually find hosting somewhere - but as soon as you get to DDoS protection, and domain re-registration different places start throwing up morals and panics, refusing services.

Cloudflare got a lot of people using it, and big money investing it by offering to protect the pipes of the net.. they did good for a long time protecting information by staying a neutral pipe.

As I saw the NGO demands that CF grow louder, I assumed legislation would force thier hand to either start blocking when X or Y place asked - not just when DOJ had a court order - and that feild would get murky, meaning they'd have to bifurcate to handle different cultures in different ways eventually..

But it was not courts, it was not new laws. It was the emotions of a single guy that turned big pipes into blockable canals - it was one guy that decided time and time again to start to judge words / pics / information and block things. On a whim, in a knee jerk fashion, without warning - and now no one could know if they are safe when seeking the safety of the open web.

It's a fuzzy needle - what's okay changes on occasion with no fanfare, not committee, no rails. It's their own trivial changes, I assume are controlled by the fbook or twitter feed that CEO gets pushed in his emotes.

So CF is now fair game for all the cancel culture to push around - get the 'right' demanding X thing be blocked - get the left to demand Y thing get blocked - let's enjoy this fun game. Our censor wars got to the point where mural of Washington had to painted over and kids books are banned.

Cf can protect all the PG-13 content of the net from DDoS and be a multi-million dollar company! I guess it could be, there are those who want to remove sesame from the airwaves - it might need protecting.

It can be a big company following all the rules of each country in the world and the extra rules that run the emotions of the main guy and the demands whatever groups that think whatever X should be blocked.

[NicoJuicy]

You're wrong, they are doing what a registrar does

https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/products/registrar/

[stevenicr]

I read the page you linked, I see nothing that says they allow registration of domains or won't remove a domain they kicked off their other services.

The page does highlight abuse reporting - from there is a link to a page with a neat graphic that shows some of their services they feel are in a grey area of responsibility (https://www.cloudflare.com/trust-hub/abuse-approach/ ) and hand wavy infrastructure is important blah blah..

but then you get to the next section and it lists a to of stuff they block without a court order (and a couple they block with) -

Now does that page relate to the other services and not their domain registration is that what you are implying?

[fomine3]

CF is still the biggest free speech champion compared to other cloud providers. They still provide some contents that some people and content holder want to taken down.

[stevenicr]

Not sure this claim can be made unless we are getting picky about defining cloud providers or how you mean 'biggest'.

They can not be the 'best free speech champion' if they block multiple speech platforms and started to work with gov agencies on how to craft rules to force more blocking, imho.

every provider hosts some form of something that 'some people and content holder want to taken down.' - some more than others - that has nothing to do with the fact that cloudlflare promoted themselves as free speech champions / we are a dumb pipe - into we block and are making it easier to block things.

[solumunus]

Source on first point?

[stevenicr]

their own public posting: https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ for starters.

see also https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ - read all the lines.