CF Censors pushing political agendas in optional services?

[MagicalAzareal]

Cloudflare family-friendly DNS service flubs first filtering foray: Vital LGBTQ, sex-ed sites blocked 'by mistake'

For a biz that prides itself on not censoring the internet, it sure likes censoring the internet

www.theregister.co.uk

I find their choice of sites to be extremely... intriguing.

This is only for a side optional service and not their main 1.1.1.1.1 DNS resolution service, but I'm not sure why you would class LGBT news sites, advocacy and some of the other things in Sarah's tweet series as "unsafe".

A sign of things to come?

 

[LeadCrow]

Households can find it useful as a simpler way to implement basic parental controls in networks and on devices that otherwise lack any such system. So much pr0n prompts and mal-ads disrupt your browsing that CF's first layer of passive protection can improve whatever else you use for blocking bad domains. This would also help get around any limitations certain govs might have on CF by providing a 'puritan' equivalent to the unrestricted resolver.

Not a fan of this dns/vpn trickery in general, as acceleration of otherwise bloated experiences incentivizes shifting native apps into online-only web services. Preserving your privacy should not require giving up any sovereignty over your data and connection endpoints.

 

[MagicalAzareal]

They seem to have improved their filters somewhat now to make it less erratic about blocking (due to the anger on Twitter, largely Sarah) which is good. They do have another resolver, 1.1.1.1.2 which filters out known malware domains, although it's unknown how much of it this covers.

It looks one of the problems here is that they pulled in filters from unreliable sources and one was particularly awful. It's somewhat worrying that they didn't vet the filters prior to putting them into place to prevent them from over-blocking.