But we don't live in a perfect world. It's a pretty weak response to say "this should not be their problem" - because, for a bunch of reasons, it is their problem.
There are bigger, harder questions along the lines of "how do we as a society deal with this kind of issue." Cloudflare does not need to solve the general case before it deal with the specific actions of this specific website - and the desire to solve the general case is not a defense against confronting the specifics.
> The federal law concerning cyberstalking is 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). It provides that it’s unlawful for any person to engage in a course of conduct through electronic communication that makes another individual reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another (including a pet or service animal). The behavior may also be illegal if it causes or could cause “substantial emotional distress.” A course of conduct means two or more acts suggesting that the individual has or will continue the behavior.
https://www.duimiamilawyer.com/blog/2020/12/is-there-a-feder...
The decision of investigators to turn a blind eye to it over the past decade is curious.
"Police exist, therefore nobody except the police is allowed to do anything about anyone's bad behavior" is a terrible argument.
There's no reason to think that just because police exist people can't do anything about other people's bad behavior though. For example, when someone says something you don't like you aren't allowed to silence them because that violates their rights, but you are allowed to use your own rights to speak out against them and what they've been saying.
Crimes should be dealt with by our legal systems, but there are plenty of other ways to deal with things that simply offend us.
and they collude secretly with corporations to advance their powers mutually https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/emails-show-amazon-rin...
I don’t ask someone to shoot their own foot to protect myself
My understanding of that website is that it is moderated based on the philosophy of "look, don't touch". Your statement runs contrary to this...
I think such a posture would encourage some to commit "false flag" SWAT-ing as a means to silence those they disagree with.
SWAT-ing is a very serious crime, and if they are "top suspects" as you claim, I expect LE would be robustly investigating them.
Thoughts?
I wouldn't have a problem with them discussing other people among themselves, but including addresses and phone numbers and such is such a bad faith "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you ha ha ha" that I wouldn't mind seeing them burned down on principle.