Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Since I'm one of those people, let me defend this position.

Cloudflare didn't kick Daily Stormer off until DS started publicly claiming that the reason CF was continuing to serve them was that CF secretly agreed with DS's politics [0]. That was a lie and might even be cause for a libel suit.

The analogy would be if the gay couple secured the agreement of the baker to bake them a wedding cake, then started announcing publicly that the reason the baker was doing that was because the baker was secretly gay. I don't think anyone would have a problem, at that point, with the baker telling them to take their business elsewhere.

Being a member of an unpopular group doesn't give you carte blanche to abuse the goodwill of the private businesses that would otherwise be required to serve you.

The actions of GoDaddy and Google in this case are less defensible, and indeed, I don't defend them. (If I understand correctly, GoDaddy kicked DS off their DNS service, so they went to Google, who not only refused to serve their domain but put it on hold, so they can't even use it elsewhere. I'm not aware that DS provoked either company they way they did Cloudflare.)

[0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/



If CF was legally obligated to offer their services to them, such a claim wouldn't hold water.

I'm not saying CF /should/ be obligated to provide the service to everyone.

I'm just saying if they were, then speculation about any implied agreement would go away.


No business is legally required to serve customers who defame and disrupt their business. The law only requires that the same standard be applied to customers who happen to be members of protected classes as is applied to everyone else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: