Cloudflare has nothing to do with it. Actually you should further insist on using Cloudflare in Spain to increase the collateral cost of this ridiculous government decision as much as possible. Make it so not a single website works during football, and see if the government changes their tune.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent [-]

If cloudflare is providing services to illegal websites, they very much are in full control of the situation. They knowingly choose to keep hosting that content, and have legal customers exposed to that risk.

You may like that the platform is open by default to everybody, but that's the obvious consequence.

▲

lukan a day ago | parent [-]

Does cloudflare refuse a court order to take down a site? I don't think so.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent [-]

Are blocking unlawful? I don't think so. Their country their rules.

Business-wise it's risky to deliver your service from IPs that also serves dirty content. Technical solutions exists, even if you want to stay on Cloudflare.

▲

drob518 a day ago | parent | next [-]

But it also highlights the fact that the idea of blocking “dirty IPs” is at best a blunt instrument. Every ISP has abusers. Some are worse than others at self-policing their customers. Cloudflare is reputable and better than most. Given the huge breadth of sites sitting behind Cloudflare, it’s crazy, IMO, to block all of Cloudflare.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent | next [-]

It does not block all of cloudflare, it blocks their shared IPs. If you are doing serious business you may not want to do it on IPs that are also used for shady content. IP reputation is a well known strategy, used by emails and other firewalls.

	▲	drob518 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, so they aren’t blocking whole ranges. Yea, you definitely don’t want to share an IP with a spammer or malware site. I thought they were blocking whole ranges.

▲

direwolf20 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

In other countries, like Italy, they made a system where domain names are fast-tracked for blocking within minutes. I hate to say it but Spain managed to do something even worse.

▲

direwolf20 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Country-wise it's risky to block the entire internet when football is on.

▲

cryptonym a day ago | parent [-]

1 - Cloudflare is not the entire internet. 2 - They close people who decide to go with a cheap/free shared host.

Solutions exist if this market is important to your business.

▲

saintfire 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Just a small 30% of the top 10k sites.

Needing to find solutions to a problem completely manufactured by sports and television is the problem.

	▲	cryptonym 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Cloudflare is a private company, they might (unwillingly) benefit from hosting illegal services. They don't implement a quick or proactive process to take down content that is obviously illegal. The money made by illegal streaming websites doesn't end in good pockets, which raises further concerns. Such streaming is quickly spawn for the event, then disappear. Even if you fight them legally after the event, they operate from countries that won't cooperate. Cloudflare could change their policy to take down quickly obvious abuse during live events. They could proactively check new customers before allowing public traffic. People can vote against protecting property if they think it creates unreasonable effects. Not sure where you got your stats but top website owners can easily deploy technical solutions to this issue. We live in a complex word. This problem is not completely manufactured by bad people at sports and television companies. What should right owners do? Accept that content they own is streamed illegally, for profit, and not use recourses the law provides?