Hacker News Reader

Comment by robocat | Hacker News Reader

> they have a history of cutting off sex workers who use their services

You are making irrelevant aspersions - they cut of sex workers because they are adhering to the US FOSTA laws: "We also terminate security services for content which is illegal in the United States — where Cloudflare is headquartered. This includes Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) as well as content subject to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)."

View on HN

Cloudflare knowingly fronts many sites that violate FOSTA. They only cared when Switter made the press.

Cloudflare gave us no warning when they suspended our account.

What makes even less sense is that Cloudflare's Head of Sales emailed us offering their services when we mentioned we were getting DDOSed as an escort directory.

Perhaps “making the press” is one limit that legal council use to decide whether CloudFlare is knowingly (according to internal legal theory) breaking the FOSTA laws: i.e. that the legal liability exceeds their appetite for risk. Their exact internal rules for deciding to terminate a sex-worker site are unlikely to be published by CloudFlare, and it could depend on non-public correspondence sent to CloudFlare. “Knowingly” is very legally vague as per this article: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-politics-of-section-2...

If they're so worried about FOSTA, it seems bad for their Head of Sales to offer services to an escort directory, no?

Right, and CF is arguing that something is incredibly dangerous or illegal about KF's content right now, so it's the same, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com