• @conciselyverbose
    link
    English
    711 month ago

    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.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      English
      351 month ago

      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.

      • @conciselyverbose
        link
        English
        111 month ago

        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).

      • @conciselyverbose
        link
        English
        181 month ago

        Their job is not to control the internet

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Same reason why they serve Lemmy instances despite illegal content on Lemmy: section 230 of the DMCA