Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 327 posts

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#151

Post by dmschulman »

IronWolve wrote: post #131

Twitter just removed the top Antifa accounts after the last fews days of major violence in Seattle and Oregon, why not the last 4+ years? The capitol hill mob was planned on facebook, facebook didnt get deplatformed. Deplatforming new startups that try to compete by the largest tech companies shouldn't depend if the startups are in the opposite political party as the tech monopolies. Let law enforcement, courts, deal…

Twitter or most other social media platforms do not have a problem with conservatives (or "the opposite political party" as you put it). Was deplatforming anyone but blatant white supremacists even a conversation before 2017?

Most mainstream conservatives operate accounts on Twitter without an issue and a fair amount of libertarian and conservative-identifying individuals have used Twitter for years without being banned for their views. Framing this as a problem with political viewpoints doesn't do much besides serve a false narrative.

If you read Twitter's rationale for banning Donald Trump it didn't have much to do with his viewpoint. It had everything to do with implying and promoting violent acts. Putting deplatforming in terms of "censorship of political views" is a seductive argument but it falls apart when you recognize the content of those viewpoints have less to do with a matter of policy opinion and more to do with an unhinged ideology based around waging civil war against your opponents.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#152

Post by [deleted] »

luminadiffusion wrote: post #145
IronWolve wrote: post #131

Twitter just removed the top Antifa accounts after the last fews days of major violence in Seattle and Oregon, why not the last 4+ years? The capitol hill mob was planned on facebook, facebook didnt get deplatformed. Deplatforming new startups that try to compete by the largest tech companies shouldn't depend if the startups are in the opposite political party as the tech monopolies. Let law enforcement, courts, deal…

This whole argument is wildly misunderstanding the problem. Andy Ngo frames this as a black & white issue - when by all reasonable measures, it is not. It’s not all free speech or none. I don’t see Andy protesting that it is a crime to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one. I also don’t see Andy protesting when that teenage girl was sent to prison for verbally abusing her boyfriend and verbally encou…

[deleted]

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#153

Post by andrewflnr »

wtallis wrote: post #97
hluska wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?

Yeah. This doesn't seem to have to potential to go as badly wrong as a lot of other high-profile examples of selective enforcement. The fact that events can play out this way and seem exceptional (ie. happening only due to political motive) pretty much implies that IPv4 addresses are not really scarce yet and remain cheap enough that hardly anyone bothers to root out this kind of misbehavior. Which also means it shou…

The potential is only lower until people figure out that looking for irregularities in people's IP address allocation is a great way to deplatform people you don't like. I'd say that grace period is just about over.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#154

Post by 1123581321 »

gruez wrote: post #99
kfogel wrote: post #91

There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selectiv…

>In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. Let's say 20% of waiters at a restaurant under-rep…

There is a step further to take, in this example, as the public regulator can decide whether or not to accept that they selectively enforce based on the bias in the tips they receive.

In the real example at hand, as long as the US government is happy with the de facto regulatory behavior of private individuals and organizations, they can maintain the status quo, perhaps at some cost of effort.

If this leads to justice at a low political and financial cost, then it is not necessarily a problem that defaults are selectively maintained, of course.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#155

Post by hedora »

StavrosK wrote: post #12

These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

The thing with antifa (the “anti fascists”) is that their techniques are indistinguishable from fascism: If you say one thing out of line publicly, they hound you for the rest of your life.

Like deplatforming, the goal is to deprive people of their right to speech. That’s fundamentally anti-democracy.

Its sad that Antifa became the thing they hate; if the big internet providers follow suit, it’ll be a disaster.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#156

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gruez wrote: post #99
kfogel wrote: post #91

There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selectiv…

>In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. Let's say 20% of waiters at a restaurant under-rep…

> This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on.

So you're fine with private employers who do criminal background checks on black applicants but not white applicants? Or a third party entity that does background checks on all black people (and only black people) and then submits the results to employers whenever they apply for a job?

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#157

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danans wrote: post #116
squibbles wrote: post #10

> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups. While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel a…

> Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Anger and distrust are sparked, stoked and fueled far more by personalities in media and politics who actively promote them than by de-platforming. > Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse People organizing and advocating violence are not fringe groups. The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend to…

> The paradox of tolerance applies here: You can't extend tolerance to those who advocate for intolerance without destroying tolerance in the process.

I don't understand how this is a paradox. You can't extend tolerance to people who commit arson and murder, or e.g. refuse to hire black people because they're black.

You can let people say whatever they want, because then you can refute their arguments and refuse to implement their proposals.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#158

Post by AnthonyMouse »

djrogers wrote: post #133
harry8 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be naieve because I don't think I'm bad faith here. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, I haven't made up my mind and may not. Please elaborate why you think this is not censorship and the distinction. What do you think this is? These are not leading questions they're genuine because I don't understand your point the way you're assuming I do.

GP is under the (incorrect) impression that censorship is only possible if enacted by a government entity. That’s blatantly and provably false, but nevertheless comes up in many discussions of censorship.

Yeah, it's three different things.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government.

Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity.

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech. Private censorship is not a violation of the First Amendment but it's still censorship.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#160

Post by joe_the_user »

IronWolve wrote: post #131

Twitter just removed the top Antifa accounts after the last fews days of major violence in Seattle and Oregon, why not the last 4+ years? The capitol hill mob was planned on facebook, facebook didnt get deplatformed. Deplatforming new startups that try to compete by the largest tech companies shouldn't depend if the startups are in the opposite political party as the tech monopolies. Let law enforcement, courts, deal…

Your link with the by line "unmask antifa" has rather little credibility (Edit: your guy is editor of The Post Millenial - "Follow Us On Parler"). For good or ill, "antifa" is a just a label for a wide variety of groups that aim to fight "fascists" in the streets. These range from random leftists to the somewhat unhinged, who indeed get regularly banned for overt calls to violence. Which is to say there are no "top Antifa accounts". Twitter bans all sorts of people regularly for all sorts of things.
Post reply on HN