After an ambivalent stance on the ultra-right Kiwi farms site in 2022, Cloudflare has repeatedly reiterated its desire not to be an “internet police”. They regularly reiterate that they are not a government, and are therefore not in a position to make decisions about content. They also frequently emphasize that there is a clear distinction between hosts and intermediaries. According to them, since intermediaries have no control over their clients’ content, they have no responsibility for what is published on their clients’ sites, and no legitimacy to moderate them. They could not therefore be accused of encouraging illegal behavior as a result. Yet the majority of governments are increasingly taking the position that intermediaries are precisely the best to put a stop to their customers’ illegal activities. Moreover, the proportionality of the measure is respected: indeed, blocking injunctions are territorial, reflecting the territorial nature of intellectual property rights.

The company cites the case of Austria as an illustration: following a ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court on IP blocking, overblocking of sites was observed. Cloudflare uses this single example – when the same measure has been applied in many countries without any problems – to take a strong stance against this measure. However, when removal at source (which is, in principle, a better and less costly solution) is ineffective, there must be some other way of dealing with resistant sites; that’s where IP blocking comes in, and it’s a long, costly and highly litigious process. It’s obviously a last-resort solution for rights holders, and it’s also the best solution for broadcasting live content: even a willing host will often take a few hours to respond to a request. By that time, the illegally broadcast match or concert will already be long over.

Cloudflare’s position on IP blocking is therefore clearly ideological, and very much in favor of pirates and in support of illegal sites.