Comment by perihelions
8 months ago
- "This also means that if a country DNS-blocks our main domain, a secondary domain may still be available. This could arguably be seen as a violation of the Cloudflare TOS, as they wrote above."
Attorneys love it when people put everything in writing like this.
Devil's advocate:
If a country A decides to block twitter.com but forgets to ban x.com which remains available ... is Twitter engaging in illegality / violation of CDN terms of service?
Like most things in the legal system, it depends on intent. It's pretty obvious that twitter's rebrand to x.com was an actual rebrand and not some way of evading domain bans.
The author claims a reasonable intent and they give a traffic number that proves they're not doing "domain rotation".
1 reply →
This has always been my concern about establishing a presence online. I've considered blogging about my experiences at work or the cool stuff that I've built and it feels impossible for me to know when I've crossed a legal boundary. How do I know for sure if I'm sharing proprietary stuff or confidential stuff. The lines of legality seem to get blurry real quick.
This is legally equivalent to "we have domain aliases". Lots of sites have those. Do you think that's really the problem here?
No, it’s technically equivalent. I be legally equivalent it would be required to prove (or disprove) intent.