• RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    They don’t care. As long as their bills are payed they will host anything that won’t get them in legal trouble.

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they were removing sites people would bash them too, there is no way they can win.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          3 months 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.

        • antler@feddit.rocks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

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