The argument is about whether it's "morally" ("ethically"?) right for Cloudflare to terminate services after their public stance. Yeah, I get Cloudflare can do whatever they want, but I want to know if I can trust Cloudflare to not go back on their public positions.
Even as someone who never visited KF before this saga, you must admit that this campaign against KF is coordinated and that you can't expect either side to be completely honest. It's already been documented that Keffal's side has been either dishonest or has strongly exaggerated details during parts of the campaign and her origin story really doesn't help her case. I've also seen some of the rhetoric coming from KF, and it's incredibly toxic and understandable why someone wouldn't want it online.
Cloudflare originally voiced their support (albeit not mentioning KF by name) for offering security services to _any_ customer -- a stance I can understand and can support. But it's difficult for me to keep supporting CF because it took less than 1 week for them to go back on their public stance. It also doesn't help that CF was not more specific about the threat made that made them change their mind. It would help me be more on their side instead of it just looking like a copout.
If I had to choose a bucket, I'd lean more into the neutral category, because this situation is just so incredibly complicated and nuanced if you've looked deeper than the news stories. I don't think a coordinated social media campaign started by a leader with an incredibly dubious history should win outright, and I can completely understand CF's position of not wanting to be affiliated with KF anymore.
> you must admit that this campaign against KF is coordinated and that you can't expect either side to be completely honest
Stating the obvious. Coordination is a prerequisite for any campaign/change movement, and no one is perfect.
But on coordination: I began advocating against CF after listening to @lizthegrey [1], a leader of the campaign, lay out the evidence of harassment - not exclusive to keffals - going back years [2]. (I mildly trust keffals by proxy, but I too am unsure of her history.)
My involvement of message amplification was purely voluntary and I received zero direction from anyone. The new friends I made along the way seem to be in the same boat. This was organic political discourse over an issue that finally came to a head.
Even as someone who never visited KF before this saga, you must admit that this campaign against KF is coordinated and that you can't expect either side to be completely honest. It's already been documented that Keffal's side has been either dishonest or has strongly exaggerated details during parts of the campaign and her origin story really doesn't help her case. I've also seen some of the rhetoric coming from KF, and it's incredibly toxic and understandable why someone wouldn't want it online.
Cloudflare originally voiced their support (albeit not mentioning KF by name) for offering security services to _any_ customer -- a stance I can understand and can support. But it's difficult for me to keep supporting CF because it took less than 1 week for them to go back on their public stance. It also doesn't help that CF was not more specific about the threat made that made them change their mind. It would help me be more on their side instead of it just looking like a copout.
If I had to choose a bucket, I'd lean more into the neutral category, because this situation is just so incredibly complicated and nuanced if you've looked deeper than the news stories. I don't think a coordinated social media campaign started by a leader with an incredibly dubious history should win outright, and I can completely understand CF's position of not wanting to be affiliated with KF anymore.