Netflix theoretically can’t provide entertainment to known terrorizes because KYC rules would prevent them from being able to pay for it.

Comcast must provide service as part of the agreement to give them local monopoly privilege.

The water company where I am is the government so they are forced to provide service because of the 1st amendment.

Vodafone similarly bought public airspace and it came with rules. I wonder if they can pick and choose their customers.

Cloudflare though is just a regular company. They provide a service, but there is nothing restricting them from banning people. It’s like how Google can ban you for almost no reason.

I think because some of us look at Internet access or phone service as akin to water or electricity service. You just don't deprive someone of those things.

Regarding your Netflix example, I doubt Netflix knows if any particular customer is a terrorist.

Having access to a CDN provider isn't in the same "basic rights" league.

I look at having a home and a place to sleep at night as categorically more important than KF having CDN access, but maybe I'm just being weird about stuff.

>I think because some of us look at Internet access or phone service as akin to water or electricity service. You just don't deprive someone of those things.

I agree that trying to cancel people from being able to enjoy baseline physical necessities is not a line that's being crossed yet, but an attack on utilities may not necessitate this. Let's say Joshua Moon also happened to run a small hobby store in a strip mall. Would going after the utility providers (or landlord) for this store be "fair game" in order to attack KiwiFarms? Why or why not?

Anything is fair game when the ends justify the means and the target is accused of killing people on your side. The only reason power companies aren't yet subject to pressure to disconnect bad people is because that tactic is presently judged as infeasible.

They absolutely will ask landlords to kick somebody out. If it becomes known that you're renting a spare room to a neonazi who's become infamous to twitter, don't expect to stay out of the fray.

>If it becomes known that you're renting a spare room to a neonazi who's become infamous to twitter, don't expect to stay out of the fray.

Do you have any examples of this line being crossed? I mean I'm sure that oftentimes the mob has raised these issues to landlords and managed to get leases revoked, but I haven't seen an actual serious attempt to attack an unresponsive landlord in the way we've seen with the attack on Cloudflare.

Also I am almost certain if you were using your natural gas utility to shoot flames at the neighbors houses, or using your power to electrocute people walking by, that you'd have your service disconnected rather quickly until it was proved you're not a public harm.

Were you actually electrocuting them I'm fairly sure you'd end up in gaol before having to deal with service disconnection.

While from my original post it's assumed it was intentional malice creating the dangerous situation, but there plenty of real world situations where service is disconnected for safety reasons.

We act like utilities are some inalienable right, but this is by far the worst argument ever. Licensed installers setup the utilities and have the work inspected. At any point where your environment presents a hazard, the utilities will be disconnected until it passes another inspection.

It's because Cloudflare actively protects these bad actors. They host DNS, they host proxy services, and they hide identifying information from WHOIS. They say they won't listen to anything short of a court order, so now we have to convene juries and get indictments to get Cloudflare to do anything at all.

Cloudflare is playing a big game.

Comparing Cloudflare protecting bad actors to the water company providing water to KKK members is completely disingenuous, but you know that, obviously. You should pick better examples.

Does the KKK use water cannons to hose people down? No. Any benefit KKK members derive from having running water is incidental to their KKK activities. Likewise if some terrorist is watching Netflix to unwind it's not furthering their terrorist activities specifically.

On the other hand, multiple groups of people have targeted Netflix for producing or promoting content that those people find offensive, which is a different situation from providing content.

When white supremacist organizations meet in conference halls at hotels people absolutely raise a stink and complain that the hotels should cancel the conferences and ban them from attendance. Cloudflare is actively and directly enabling the specific activity that people find detestable, same as hotels hosting white supremacists.

Not sure that protection is a utility, but even then I think the reason Cloudflare gets criticism/critique (not harassment...) comes as a result of the online nature of LGBTQ communities and Cloudflare's location in the closest thing to a physical epicenter of those communities.

I don't know what distinction you were imagining, but I think this one is relatively simple

The services you mention don’t provide a platform for their message, except maybe Comcast.

Cloudflare caches and rehosts content. Their services actively facilitate the distribution of their customers' website contents.

So does an ISP?

ISPs are pipes. If they're doing anything more than offering a physical connection, they're not just an ISP.