Not a fanboy, still downvoted your post because it's incredibly whiny and does not contribute anything. All you're doing is accuse of censorship without evidence, you say they screwed up "so many times" yet fail to show one example, and then you preemptively accuse people who would dare downvote you to be fanboys.

Sorry, but that comment is noise. Mine is too, but hopefully it helps you see things more clearly rather than let you pat yourself on the back thinking "HN is full of fanboys anyway".

When you use the phrase "un-American" please remember that you're talking to an international audience who see being American as a completely orthogonal issue to any type of behaviour. It makes you seem parochial, and slightly nationalistic.

To be clear, the parent comment is written by someone who is upset that CloudFlare terminated service to violent neo-Nazis. The fact their language is nationalistic is unsurprising.

Violent? I'm not aware of any lawsuits due to violence by the neo Nazi founder and I despise neo Nazi speech as anyone else.

You completely missed the point or maybe you just don't give a s++t about 1A rights.

The other issue is they claimed to be hands off to customers, obviously within the bounds of the law.

The sad truth is this - distasteful as DS/Anglin is, he was not running afoul of the law. Matthew Prince unilaterally decided to reverse 200+ years of 1A jurisprudence for one of its customers because he disagreed with their views.

These Matthew Prince types are the same assclowns who sue Christian bakeries for refusing to adorn wedding cakes with 2 male or 2 female figures when they exercise their 1A rights to discriminate based in faith preferences.

The height of hypocrisy displayed by Cloudflare was galaxy sized, despite it being legal.

That's what I and many others blasted them about.

I can't put it any more clearly than this.

> "the same assclowns who sue Christian bakeries for refusing to adorn wedding cakes with 2 male or 2 female figures when they exercise their 1A rights to discriminate based in faith preferences."

How is this different from refusing service to neo-Nazis?

It seems like you're arguing that the first amendment should apply if I refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple, but not if I refuse to sell DNS service to neo-Nazis.

Can you clarify?

You only get sued if you're defending your faith. That's the difference.

Your argument is not philosophically consistent, and it's clear you are seeing persecution rather than philosophy. Under Conservative philosophy, it is clear that CloudFlare has a right to deny service to a customer it doesn't want. It's chosen to not provide services to violent neo-Nazis. Get over it.

Please explain to me how it's un-American for a company to choose who they want as their customers? The typical Conservative position would be that businesses have a right to choose who they wish to serve, and denying service should not be an illegal act as their prospective customers can go elsewhere to find another business to serve them, which is exactly what those disgusting hatemongers did.

You are of course referring to this: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

Why try to hide behind your words? Just straight out say you are angry at CloudFlare for ceasing to host violent neo-Nazi propaganda.