> There's a DNS blocklist from media industry applied by German ISPs

By the CUII with no judicial oversight. German organizations like the CCC and free speech activists very much hate that this is a thing.

Posting it a hundred times doesn't make your claim more correct. If your rights are infringed, you can always go to court. If you think your right to access certain information is an infringement of Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG ("Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality [...]"), you can drag this to The Federal Constitutional Court.

No I can't, since I lack the monetary funds. My claim stands corrected, the going to the federal constitutional court is expensive enough that many people are barred from that option. My claim stands correct - no judicial verdict is needed for the CUII to censor websites. Don't believe me. Believe the activists [1].

[1]: https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-cuii-wie-konzerne-heimlich-webse...

new comment: you're so wrong that not even the opposite of your statement would be true. CUII is a private body, but it forces its members to go to court before they ask CUII to initiate a block:

Jede DNS-Sperre einer strukturell urheberrechtsverletzenden Webseite (SUW) wird im Rahmen der CUII gerichtlich überprüft.

Das ist freiwillige Selbstverpflichtung der CUII-Mitglieder. Denn eigentlich besteht kein Richtervorbehalt für die Sperransprüche nach § 8 Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG). Aus diesem Grund sind auch die DNS-Sperren nach dem alten Verhaltenskodex mit behördlicher Beteiligung zulässig gewesen (Siehe Fragen: “Was verändert sich durch den neuen Verhaltenskodex der CUII?” und “Warum gab es zum Juli 2025 - nach jahrelanger Arbeit - einen Systemwechsel in der CUII?”).

old comment: CUII is not a governmental body so what the hell should they need a court order for when doing the thing that their members pay them to do? If your not happy with your internet access provider being a member of CUII, switch your internet access provider. I agree that CUII should publish a list of blocked domains as part of transparent communication and proving that they are doing a good job.

Why should a private entity control what people see online?

Why should you - a private entity - control what content other people have to serve you?

ISPs act as gatekeepers for essential information. When they control what flows, they’re effectively regulating speech.

I'm ready to discuss this as soon as we're speaking about essential information and not about your urge to access other people's work for free.

Yes, I didn't want to say it is a good thing.

If the German filters only apply to ISPs in Germany, they have no effect on users in foreign countries. Moreover, Cloudflare is obviously not an ISP.

the filters the Italian authorities complain about also only apply in italy.

It's likely a process thing, Italy has had website bans since forever, but the new regulation applies _without going through a judge_. Some copyright holders can say "this website is infringing" and ISPs, CDNs etc.. are required to shut them down immediately.

A similar system was introduced in Spain, with the same problems, for the same reason (football $$$).

EDIT: to be clear, CF argues that they need to block the DNS globally, and that's unreasonable. The Italian authority argues that they have the skills to do a local block and are just being uncooperative.

> The Italian authority argues that they have the skills to do a local block

they certainly do, they have the source IP and their platform lets them geolocate an ip

> EDIT: to be clear, CF argues that they need to block the DNS globally, and that's unreasonable. The Italian authority argues that they have the skills to do a local block and are just being uncooperative.

Similar to the UK's attempt to try and get noncompliant sites like Imgur and 4chan to block themselves from serving content to UK locations, I think the responsibility for country-wide blocks lies with the country attempting to regulate the space, not CDNs or websites.

I don't doubt that Italy is correct that CF has the technical ability do a local block like they're asking for, but I also don't see how CF is in any way (legally) compelled to do so. Whether or not Italy (or any country) is capable of doing so, or paying contractors for an appropriate solution, isn't CF's problem either.

The difference is that Imgur/4chan have no presence in the UK but Cloudflare has servers and probably a sales office in Italy. Cloudflare does have to follow Italian law within Italy.

Either Cloudflare can block pirate sites or ISPs will completely block Cloudflare (as seen in Spain). Which way do you prefer?

As I understand it Cloudflare is being asked to block these sites globally, and what I said was that Italy doesn't have the legal authority to request that CF do so globally.

Locally, within Italy I can see the argument that CF can be compelled to adhere to blocking sites for any requests originating from, or being routed to Italy - so long as Cloudflare maintains any kind of presence there. That goes for any other country, too.

Realistically maintaining this kind of work puts a financial and engineering overhead on Cloudflare (or any CDN) for running operations in that country, and that incentivizes Cloudflare to push back on this request from any country. The logical response from CF is to refuse and threaten to remove all operations from the country if the country tries to force the issue, to prevent CF from getting pulled into the same requirements for multiple other countries, which is exactly what CF did a couple days ago.

I'll reiterate my previous stance - if a country wants to block part of the internet, that country needs to do it themselves and for the space within which they have authority to do so (their borders). At that point it's up to the citizens of the country to push back if they disagree, and if they don't want to be compared to China and their Great Firewall they shouldn't try and regulate the internet.

I'm pretty sure Cloudflare is an ISP according to German law ("Diensteanbieter" according to DDG). You might confuse "ISP" with the terminology of "Access Provider" according to the (now defunct) §8 TMG.

If that were true, sci-hub.se would be blocked in Germany on 1.1.1.1 (1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com), it isn't blocked, therefore it's not true. (Modus tollens)

Your reasoning is impeccable, bravo. But it's wrong. Both your premise and your conclusion are based on completely wrong assumptions.

Not sure which premise you disagree with, but the conclusion follows from them.

I am a Service Provider ("Diensteanbieter") according to DDG and I don't block a single page, which makes your statement not only wrong, but rather so wrong that not even the complete opposite would make any sense.

Not necessarily. Perhaps small service providers are exempt from blocking sci-hub.se. But Cloudflare is certainly not small.

Have you ever considered reading the law before attempting to discuss it?

You are clearly unable to cite a portion of the law which proves that Cloudflare counts as a service provider.

§ 1 Absatz 4 Nummer 5 Digitale-Dienste Gesetz: Im Sinne dieses Gesetzes ist oder sind „Diensteanbieter“ Anbieter digitaler Dienste;

That's just stating a tautology.

No, it's not. It's a very precise way to state that the law has to be applied to a very wide range of service providers. This is a fundamental change compared to the previous regulation TKG. Now take the loss and next time, read the damn manual first.

The quote does not decide whether Cloudflare counts as a "service provider" or not.

Oh really… then let’s make it obvious:

1. Do they offer any kind of service? YES.

2. Is the service they offer of a digital nature? Also YES.

It’s never been easier.

Do you think the Italian bureaucrats really want to ban something in France or Germany?

The Cloudflare CEO is clearly misinterpreting something that was lost in translation, which is the bureaucrats stating "Cloudflare must prevent access to XY from everywhere". For bureaucrats "everywhere" means "in my jurisdiction". I cannot believe that the Cloudflare CEO is trying to nitpick around a single word that he so clearly misinterprets.

> Do you think the Italian bureaucrats really want to ban something in France or Germany?

Yes 100% they absolutely do.

Or he perfectly understands what they meant but chose to create artificial outrage. "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" has not aged well in 2026

No, in fact I think most in US tech are awfully ignorant about Europe. That's why I explicitly brought it up. Just because we Europeans can speak your language doesn't mean that people from the US understand how our countries work. And most US tech companies are located in Ireland in a small US expat bubble.

You are presumably also not an Italian, so I don't know why you would know more about Italy than he just because you are European. I'm also European, and I certainly don't thereby know more about Italy than about, say, the US.

What is the escalation? Cloudflare or any company is free to stop doing business in any country which mistreats them or doesn't align with their interest. How can you interpret this in some way as Cloudflare being the aggressor? They don't owe the nation of Italy anything.