Almost all of their customers are using the free, high-risk tier, because it's free.

Free users and being high risk is not the same thing. There are many many low risk free customers.

Cloudflare wasn't asked to do anything. LaLiga went straight to the courts to demand all ISPs in the country to block Cloudflare.

This law on banks is a bad law. It doesn't stop money laundering, it does make it hard for lots of people to have bank accounts. We should abolish that law, not copy it.

Why are the IPs the relevant things? There are domains as well. And origin servers. Why not block the domain or the origin server, which wouldn't have collateral damage.

They reply to subpoenas just like everyone else. But that's too slow for the greedy fat cats at LaLiga.

You're the customer of your ISP who's the customer of another ISP who's the customer of another ISP who Hacker News is a customer of.

The Digital Markets Act speaks of "conduits" instead of speaking of the specific form the conduits may take. It does not give special rights to someone who forwards IP packets unmodified or to someone who receives IP packets and reissues other IP packets or to someone who changes the IP addresses in the packets. It only cares about the net effect of the transmission, and the fact is that Cloudflare is a conduit with caching.

Their supreme court allowed it. Their congress is now overturning it.

The court can order Cloudflare to block a website, but that isn't what the court did.

It's related because it does the same thing.

My ISP obfuscates my location by replacing it with an IP address . However, if the government wants to know my location, they can ask my ISP to find out a physical address based on an IP address. They can also ask Cloudflare to find out an origin IP address based on a domain name. This is normal. It's also slow. The Spanish government doesn't want to bother arresting pirates, it would rather be seen doing something about the problem, without doing something about the problem.