Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Admittedly without reading the article, but: it's completely unfair to accuse a company of supporting something when they have no direct knowledge and very little control to prevent someone like ISIS from using their services.
It's like if a member of ISIS has an Amazon.com account and buys a pocket knife off Amazon. Is Amazon now to be accused of selling weapons to terrorists, when they couldn't have had pre-knowledge of such a thing?
It's one thing if Cloudfare/Amazon investigates and says, "yes, we know it's ISIS, but we won't stop servicing them as a customer". I am quite sure that isn't the case.
In the article, Cloudfare states that they have protected Anonymous's websites from the government and find it hypocryptical for them to be attacking them for someone using their services.
