> Blocking IPs was never going to do much to solve the issue. It's a wack-a-mole game.

But that in their mind is "solving the issue, at that time". Why do you think they want to expand it to other sports now, because "doesn't do anything" or because they actually see some effect from it?

> Blocking one of the biggest providers of internet infra was anything but "the least amount of collateral". Plenty of companies and services depend on Cloudflare.

Ok, so given their perspective is "something must be done" and Cloudflare are not blocking the users after requests, what is the alternative here? Turning off the entire internet connection for individual users? Turning off all the internet during games? I really don't know what alternative could be possible, that still satisfies their "something must be done".

Again, I agree that this is an massive overstep, wildly miscalculated and I'm personally affected by this every time a football is on, I don't like it either.

Can you get closer to the source than chrome? Can you get closer to the source than cloudflare?

Don't be disingenuous just because you like the company.

That is something we'll need to figure out. Just because it requires some work to figure out where to draw the line, it doesn't make it wrong to draw one.

Banks are generally required to check that their customers are not laundering money. In a lot of countries it's illegal to buy or sell goods that you know are very likely stolen.

It don't think it's outrageous to expect more action from Cloudflare when they must know that their service is used for protecting criminal sites.

Relatedly I'd want the betting companies whose ads are shown on these illegal pages to have some amount of responsibility for where their ads are shown, and the same goes for well-renowned websites that show clearly deceiving ads.

A report content form, like DMCA, with support people behind processing the tickets. It already exists.

When there is phishing or pedo content, you think they wait for court order or react to abuse ?

They are distributing content through their servers, not just displaying it.

Every hosting and CDN companies has abuse department, it's a normal part of the process. Here, Cloudflare is aware, and chooses to ignore the abuse requests, then they have to take their responsibilities.

Cloudflare is a US-based company so they are realistically out of reach, or too late.

If there are abuse requests, and Cloudflare wants to comply but not block the website, they can downgrade to DNS only, and then the host IP would be blocked.

If Cloudflare doesn't comply and intentionally keeps distributing content -> block Cloudflare.

At some point for them, the cost of complying with the law will be cheaper than handling the complaints that they are blocked.

It's like YouTube, they shutdown content on request of rights holders.

> or notice

Maybe I'm being optimistic but I'm assuming the first action wasn't large scale IP blocks. Cloudflare likely didn't take action.

> What do you expect cloudflare to actually do about these streams?

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that the market leader in bot detection can't detect sport suddenly being streamed to an influx of people from a new IP at kick off. If this was the US banning them, I'm sure they'd have found a way around it by now