The open web is akin to the commons, public domain and public land. So this is like putting a spy cam on a freeway billboard, detecting autonomous vehicles, and shining a spotlight at their camera to block them from seeing the ad. To what end?
Eventually these questions will need to be decided in court:
1) Do netizens have the right to anonymity? If not, then we'll have to disclose whether we're humans or artificial beings. Spying on us and blocking us on a whim because our behavior doesn't match social norms will amount to an invasion of privacy (eventually devolving into papers please).
2) Is blocking access to certain users discrimination? If not, then a state-sanctioned market of civil rights abuse will grow around toll roads (think whites-only drinking fountains).
3) Is downloading copyrighted material for learning purposes by AI or humans the same as pirating it and selling it for profit? If so, then we will repeat the everyone-is-a-criminal torrenting era of the 2000s and 2010s when "making available" was treated the same as profiting from piracy, and take abuses by HBO, the RIAA/MPAA and other organizations who shut off users' internet connections through threat of legal actions like suing for violating the DMCA (which should not have been made law in the first place).
I'm sure there are more. If we want to live in a free society, then we must be resolute in our opposition of draconian censorship practices by private industry. Gatekeeping by large, monopolistic companies like Cloudflare simply cannot be tolerated.
I hope that everyone who reads this finds alternatives to Cloudflare and tells their friends. If they insist on pursuing this attack on our civil rights for profit, then I hope we build a countermovement by organizing with the EFF and our elected officials to eventually bring Cloudflare up on antitrust charges.
Cloudflare has shown that they lack the judgement to know better. Which casts doubt on their technical merits and overall vision for how the internet operates. By pursuing this course of action, they have lost face like Google did when it removed its "don't be evil" slogan from its code of conduct so it could implement censorship and operate in China (among other ensh@ttification-related goals).
Edit: just wanted to add that I realize this may be an opt-in feature. But that's not the point - what I'm saying is that this starts a bad precedent and an unnecessary arms race, when we should be questioning whether spidering and training AI on copyrighted materials are threats in the first place.
The open web is akin to the commons, public domain and public land. So this is like putting a spy cam on a freeway billboard, detecting autonomous vehicles, and shining a spotlight at their camera to block them from seeing the ad. To what end?
Eventually these questions will need to be decided in court:
1) Do netizens have the right to anonymity? If not, then we'll have to disclose whether we're humans or artificial beings. Spying on us and blocking us on a whim because our behavior doesn't match social norms will amount to an invasion of privacy (eventually devolving into papers please).
2) Is blocking access to certain users discrimination? If not, then a state-sanctioned market of civil rights abuse will grow around toll roads (think whites-only drinking fountains).
3) Is downloading copyrighted material for learning purposes by AI or humans the same as pirating it and selling it for profit? If so, then we will repeat the everyone-is-a-criminal torrenting era of the 2000s and 2010s when "making available" was treated the same as profiting from piracy, and take abuses by HBO, the RIAA/MPAA and other organizations who shut off users' internet connections through threat of legal actions like suing for violating the DMCA (which should not have been made law in the first place).
I'm sure there are more. If we want to live in a free society, then we must be resolute in our opposition of draconian censorship practices by private industry. Gatekeeping by large, monopolistic companies like Cloudflare simply cannot be tolerated.
I hope that everyone who reads this finds alternatives to Cloudflare and tells their friends. If they insist on pursuing this attack on our civil rights for profit, then I hope we build a countermovement by organizing with the EFF and our elected officials to eventually bring Cloudflare up on antitrust charges.
Cloudflare has shown that they lack the judgement to know better. Which casts doubt on their technical merits and overall vision for how the internet operates. By pursuing this course of action, they have lost face like Google did when it removed its "don't be evil" slogan from its code of conduct so it could implement censorship and operate in China (among other ensh@ttification-related goals).
Edit: just wanted to add that I realize this may be an opt-in feature. But that's not the point - what I'm saying is that this starts a bad precedent and an unnecessary arms race, when we should be questioning whether spidering and training AI on copyrighted materials are threats in the first place.