Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by jackson1442 on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @12:31PM
(#32664624)
How can we leave something for the courts to decide while at the same time dismissing all courts other than the US? Especially when you consider neither the hosting provider of the site in question, nor the target of this wave of harassment are from the US.
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by NoraCodes on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @01:11PM
(#32665259)
Yep, I think this is a critical point. People in this thread keep saying things like, "If KiwiFarms is doing illegal things, prosecute them!" while ignoring that it's Cloudflare and other infrastructure providers that enable them to do those things across borders.
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by philippejara on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @05:10PM
(#32668389)
At that point why bother with cloudflare? if you have a credible legal case to take down the hosting of the website you make a legal case in the place where it is being hosted and use that to get it down. I can't really see any reason for a court of law to force cloudflare to not service someone given that the obvious implications that the one asking for that to happen wants to commit a felony, or at the very least make the target susceptible to one, assuming cloudflare isn't hosting anything of course.
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by viraptor on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @06:39PM
(#32669258)
Because the hosting company may be not bothered and actively supporting the extremist content. (guess if this applies in this case...)
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by philippejara on Thursday September 01, 2022 @08:06AM
(#32675202)
The hosting company views are completely irrelevant once they receive a legal order to stop hosting something.
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
by Mindwipe on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @01:20PM
(#32665410)
That's exactly what happened with FOSTA and they roll over and ask for their tummies to be tickled, because Cloudflare's official policy is that the lives of sex workers isn't terribly important.
> Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of whatever jurisdiction is willing to be the most restrictive.
It is pretty hard to suggest that someone can sue Cloudflare in a random country with either a corrupt or weak judicial system (not saying that's the case here, but in general) then get it taken down globally. To add, taking things down in a single country might not be super effective with the way the internet works, and the court might see someone browsing from a VPN and claim that a geoip-based block is insufficient for compliance.
Although, I don't know the exact case you're referring to or if it's covered by this statement.