←back to thread

1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

(blog.cloudflare.com)
1895 points _l4jh | 4 comments | 01 Apr 18 12:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.663s | source
Show context
JD557 ◴[01 Apr 18 14:46 UTC] No.16728535[source]▶
I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the "solution".

While Cloudflare has been pretty neutral about censoring sites in the past (notably, pirate sites), the Daily Stormer incident put them in a though spot[1].

They talk a bit about Project Galileo (the link is broken BTW, it should be https://www.cloudflare.com/galileo), but their examples do not mention topics that would be controversial in western societies, and the site is quite vague. Would they also protect sites like sci-hub, for example?

While I would rather use a DNS not owned by Google, I have never seen any site blocked by them, including sites with a nation-wide block. I hope that Cloudflare is able to do the same thing.

1: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-doesnt-want-daily-storme...

replies(6): >>16728539 #>>16728791 #>>16728822 #>>16729017 #>>16729237 #>>16733194 #
1. kentonv ◴[01 Apr 18 16:17 UTC] No.16729017[source]▶
There's a pretty big difference between terminating a business relationship (which is what Cloudflare did to Daily Stormer, and which Google also did a couple days before Cloudflare did) and refusing to answer DNS queries for third-party domains with which there is no business relationship. It's hard to imagine how the former could be used as precedent to compel the latter.

Cloudflare has no interest in censorship -- the whole reason the Daily Stormer thing was such a big deal was because it's the only time Cloudflare has ever terminated a customer for objectionable content. Be sure to read the blog post to understand: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

(Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare but I'm not in a position to set policy.)

replies(2): >>16729150 #>>16731938 #
2. JD557 ◴[01 Apr 18 16:42 UTC] No.16729150[source]▶
I probably should have made a clearer point instead of linking to TorrentFreak.

I did not mean that I was worried that CloudFlare's DNS would start blocking sites whose content they disagree with (although that would also be worrisome).

I'm worried that copyright holders might be able to use the Daily Stormer case as a precedent to force CloudFlare to stop offering services to infringing sites.

If they are able to do that, I can also see them attempting to force CloudFlare to remove DNS entries as well.

replies(1): >>16729493 #
3. kentonv ◴[01 Apr 18 17:49 UTC] No.16729493[source]▶
Right, as I said, it's hard for me to see how one could be used as precedent for the other given how different the situations are. And if you could use it, you could just as easily do the same against Google DNS.

I'm not a lawyer, though.

4. ◴[02 Apr 18 02:50 UTC] No.16731938[source]▶