Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoraCodes | Hacker News Reader

It's very telling that this post does not mention Cloudflare dropping switter, a social media site by and for sex workers which was, at the time, not violating any laws. They regret dropping self-described Nazis but not legal sex work? Cloudflare has an ideological agenda which they are masking behind supposed neutrality.

View on HN

> It's very telling that this post does not mention Cloudflare dropping switter, a social media site by and for sex workers which was, at the time, not violating any laws.

Not true, it was dropped in response to SESTA being signed into law less than a week earlier which greatly expanded their legal liability.

Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...

Reporting: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudfla...

Ah, I had the timeline wrong, thanks for the correction. Still shitty in context, given how many laws KF violates, but more consistent for sure.

Which ones does it violate specifically?

I suggest you consult some of the readily available news coverage on the topic.

The problem here is that Switter is an Australian company. What justification did Cloudflare have in applying United States law to them?

That's a good point, although I imagine that the actual justification is less to do with Switter's legal exposure than Cloudflare's.

I have been reading news but I am yet to see a law broken by the website, I've seen it claimed but yet to see anything conclusive. I thought asking someone making the claim might be able to provide some evidence. I guess not.

Cloudflare still fronts many sites that are most definitely violating SESTA, but presumably Cloudflare chooses to look the other way when they're taking money, or the CEO doesn't have a problem with the site.

Realistically they either don't know about what those sites do or their legal department updated their advice after reviewing SESTA and applicable case law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com