ADL Says Cloudflare Keeps 5 Million-User Gore Site Online Despite Links to 6 Attacks
Updated
Updated · The Denver Post · May 21
ADL Says Cloudflare Keeps 5 Million-User Gore Site Online Despite Links to 6 Attacks
1 articles · Updated · The Denver Post · May 21
A new ADL report says Cloudflare still provides infrastructure services to WatchPeopleDie, a gore forum tied to six attacks in two years, including five school shootings.
Those attacks left 12 people dead and 134 injured, and the report argues Cloudflare could cripple the site by withdrawing support but has chosen not to.
Cloudflare has long argued it is a neutral pass-through service rather than a publisher, though the ADL says rivals such as Amazon Web Services have clearer rules against violent or terrorist-inciting content.
The watchdog urged Cloudflare to change its violent-content policies and cut off the site, while acknowledging infrastructure-level moderation is an all-or-nothing step that raises censorship concerns.
WatchPeopleDie was one channel in the radicalization of the 16-year-old who carried out the Sept. 10 Evergreen High School shooting, injuring two students before dying by suicide.
When online hate fuels real-world violence, can internet infrastructure companies still claim neutrality?
Does deplatforming extremist sites actually stop them, or just push them into darker corners of the web?
If infrastructure companies become content police, who decides what speech is too dangerous for the internet?
In May 2026, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a report exposing Cloudflare’s ongoing support for high-risk websites, including those promoting violent extremism and graphic violence. This sparked strong criticism from investors like JLens, who argued that Cloudflare’s Board was failing to manage risks and called for urgent governance reforms. While Cloudflare claims to be a neutral internet utility, the company holds significant power over online content and faces increasing legal and ethical scrutiny. The controversy highlights a growing debate about the responsibilities of internet infrastructure providers, the need for transparency, and the balance between free speech and preventing real-world harm.