174
Cloudflare once again comes under pressure for enabling abusive sites
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
174 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59710 readers
1830 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They don't care. As long as their bills are payed they will host anything that won't get them in legal trouble.
They shouldn't care. Their job is not to control the internet. It's to provide routing and content delivery.
Responding to legal takedown notices is as far as they should go, and in a better system, would be as far as they're legally allowed to go.
Exactly. In fact, I'd prefer for services like Cloudflare to not know much of anything about their customers, aside from whether they're legally allowed to use the service.
Yeah, the biggest threat they pose is how many domains they see everything from.
Though they did use it well with that JS supply chain bullshit a month or two ago (and equally importantly, explicitly acknowledged in their announcement that it was an extraordinary measure and not something they wanted to make a routine thing).
So why are they still servicing 4chan if 4chan has a bunch of illegal content on it?
They take websites offline if and only if they receive a legal order to do so.
Sites with user generated content have broad protections against illegal actions of their users unless they do one of a small handful of things that exposes them to liability, like actively participating or ignoring legitimate takedown requests. It's not an accident. That's how the internet is intended to work, and the only way allowing user generated content is realistically possible.
Same reason why they serve Lemmy instances despite illegal content on Lemmy: section 230 of the DMCA
If they were removing sites people would bash them too, there is no way they can win.