Selling DDOS services is a lot more cut-and-dry than the daily stormer. This isn't a question of free speech, or hateful speech, etc. - this is advertising a blatantly illegal service that directly attacks both Cloudflare and their customers.

The article itself even says the tipping point for daily stormer was "the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology" which is hardly any sort of Due Process.

▲

AntonyGarand a day ago | parent [-]

How would you differentiate the good and bad DDoS services?

There is a use case for buying them for testing purposes to apply on yourself, so it's not as cut-and-dry as you would expect.

▲

handoflixue 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Given the resources required, I'd expect a good DDOS service probably has a reputation in the industry, plausibly some sort of certifications, etc. - selling an easily mis-used service requires a lot of protections

Conversely, this site proudly advertises that it has zero "Know Your Customer" restrictions, bypasses Cloudflare protections, etc.

Quoting the site directly: "Some popular use cases are taking down competitor websites, creating unfair advantages in games and personal agendas."

Even their CYA disclaimers are flimsy: "We simply ask to only use our tools on infrastructure that you own or are permitted to attack."

Not "Require", "ask".

	▲	AntonyGarand 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		And that's diligence that Cloudflare would need to enforce on every single site they have? This one is fairly obviously bad, but some will be more ambiguous, and I wouldn't expect Cloudflare to be the one policing them all.