361–370 of 386 posts
I'll definitely be using this as I can only connect to my house via IPv6 and my mobile provider doesn't offer it. This means that I can just toggle on the VPN for when I need IPv6 connectivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great eye! We haven't figured out how to expose them yet for sites not using Cloudflare. We do have some experience solving this problem for Spectrum [1] we're hoping to lean on. The most important thing to us is users don't expect us to keep their IP private, as that is not the intent of WARP. 1- https://blog.cloudflare.com/mmproxy-creative-way-of-preservi...
Are you going out of your way to forward the original IP to the end recipient? What's the point of that? Is it to support IP authenticated logins or similar?
Cloudflare WARP is an easy-to-use free VPN which protects your IP address from businesses who haven't paid Cloudflare yet. Companies like InfoUSA can convert 95% of US IP addresses to physical addresses and household resident names. By inserting themselves in the network between users and websites, Cloudflare will soon be able to get a chunk of InfoUSA's advertising profits. Remember, if you aren't paying for it then…
Just like how “but they can see your email” isn’t enough of a deterrent to convince the majority of people to switch from free gmail (hotmail, yahoo, etc.) to a paid service with actual privacy, “Cloudflare can see your traffic” is unlikely to convince people who are more worried about nebulous sniffers and scammers at their local coffee shops than giant internet infrastructure companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central... quote: There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its…
As an addition, this is not meant to discourage you from taking this path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warp excludes many sites from traffic routing (like video)
Source? That seems like a huge caveat - WARP protects your privacy except for specific sites you visit that Cloudflare silently decides on?
C
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone els…
> What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. Entirely agree and current laws already prohibit encouraging murder > I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for so…
Things like civil rights laws are the flip side of the same coin. I'm comfortable with laws that prohibit threats of violence. I'm comfortable with laws that ensure you can't refuse service to someone just because they're of a race you don't like. I think that's a reasonable compromise of "free speech".
But I'm not comfortable with a government requiring that a company allow their users to build something like 8chan inside their service. If Reddit didn't want to allow users to have a sub dedicated to fat shaming, I'm not comfortable with the government being able to tell Reddit that they're required to allow that sub to operate, unfettered. If Facebook wants to shut down a page or group that promotes hatred of a particular race, I'm not comfortable with the government saying they have to let it run.
So how do we solve this problem? The article you reference even suggests, at the very end, that (despite the examples of past bad behavior) all this worrying might be for nothing:
> My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone. It’s entirely possible that we’ll escape with only a few things banned that probably deserve it. I certainly hope this is the case.
He also acknowledges that it's not great to be in a position where we have to depend on hope in order to reach a good outcome, which I agree with, but maybe that's just all we have. Legislating behavior only works up to a point. Legislating attitudes doesn't work at all.
I'm happy to see the Daily Stormer gone. I'm happy to see 8chan gone. I'm happy to see Reddit banning some subs (and honestly wish they'd ban more). I don't see the value in tolerating speech that promotes intolerance. But I'm not comfortable with the government stepping in here, and while their handling is far from perfect, the private companies aren't doing too terrible a job at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that Facebook was successfully abused by the Christchurch killer, but 8chan was being used by his community as intended , not abused. To most people, that's why 8chan needed to be shut down, but Facebook only needs to be fixed. Why do you think that's irrelevant, and being small is the only crime?
As I understand 8chan took down the stream in reasonable time.
Another reason I don't think this is true is that I also can't find anything suggesting that the content the Christchurch killer posted is illegal (indeed, it has significant newsworthiness and academic value), and 8chan's policy was to allow anything not "illegal in the United States of America" [1] . If it didn't violate 8chan's policies, why did they take down the stream?
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20190805065011/https://8ch.net/fa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You and I have completely inverted ideas of what censorship is and why it is bad. Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism. Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is t…
the point is that in every jurisdiction in the world there are already laws to stop "encouraging mass murder to post their killing spree". Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. Moreover an actual court of law ruling that 8chan was an illegal site would set a precedent for such thing happening. > They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ide…
"My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone."
> This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way.
I resolutely and absolutely oppose corporations acting extralegally. But Cloudflare and Voxility have an absolute legal right to not do business with 8chan and Epik if they so choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? That seems like a huge caveat - WARP protects your privacy except for specific sites you visit that Cloudflare silently decides on?
> WARP is not designed to allow you to access geo-restricted content when you’re traveling. It will not hide your IP address from the websites you visit. C
Based on speed tests, it doesn't look like Warp is bypassed for video content.