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

171–180 of 327 posts

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

#171

Post by gundmc »

tptacek wrote: post #169
anfilt wrote: post #144

This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. I agree with the EFFs conclusion for most part here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-priva... Like sure this DDOS provider may not have enough of a presence in belize anymore to hold those IPs, but it's an IP block, probably more than just Parler is using them. Also tons of companies open shell offices for domain…

This doesn't look like targeting of Parler; it looks instead like Parler further raised the notoriety of DDoS-Guard, who was improperly claiming IPv4 space from LACNIC.

Yes, according to the article the complaint was lodged before Parler moved to DDoS-Guard.

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

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

hedora wrote: post #155
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.

> 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.

I see no evidence of that being true in any substantive way. I’d be surprised if there aren't some people somewhere who fit that description and identify with the antifascist movement, which is a big, diverse, decentralized movement. But I don't see it happening in any significant degree.

> Like deplatforming, the goal is to deprive people of their right to speech.

No, it's to get other people to exercise their right to free speech to not amplify harmful voices.

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

#173

Post by danans »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #157
danans wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> You can let people say whatever they want

Indeed, you can let them say whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content.

> refuse to implement their proposals

There are real practical limits to free speech.

A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence is of the same kind as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

That is fundamentally different than a proposal to eliminate the estate tax, provide a universal basic income, or organizing to peacefully protest using civil disobedience.

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

#174

Post by danans »

AshWolfy wrote: post #167
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a pretty good start: https://www.thestreet.com/phildavis/news/a-game-designers-an... Show them the method of operation of the theory building so they can recognize it and stop participating in it.

People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe. Doing something like this can be great, but it takes time and effort, meanwhile acts of terrorism are being committed now. Most qanoners dont really believe it, and if separated from their echo chambers, will deradicalize themselves

> Most qanoners dont really believe it

Not only that, for many of them it's just fun - in exactly the same way that some people find supermarket tabloids entertaining. The audience for these conspiracies is quite similar (probably overlaps) with the audience of the National Enquirer.

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

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danans wrote: post #173
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> You can let people say whatever they want Indeed, you can let them say whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content. > refuse to implement their proposals There are real practical limits to free speech. A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence is of the same kind as yelling "fir…

> But that doesn't mean that anyone else should or should not. It's not like there aren't companies and service providers willing to host the content.

Isn't the service currently down?

> yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

> A "proposal" that is an incitement to organized violence

But then you need not worry about what some website or service is doing because that is illegal and the police can arrest them for it.

Basically, a call to violence isn't information, it's action, like ordering a hit. The prohibited act is really the order, i.e. participation in a conspiracy to commit an act of violence, and the communication is only the evidence of it.

Compare mob boss who says "whack that guy" and goes to jail for it vs. news reporter who reports that mob boss ordered a hit, unintentionally informing a hit man who wasn't aware of the order. News reporter doesn't go to jail for that because their intent was only to communicate information, not enable the act of violence, even though they conveyed the same information and it had the same result.

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

#176

Post by OptionX »

So who elected Ron Guilmette to a position whre he can police the internet over whats acceptable and what isn't? Seems like a job you kinda have to be elected or something and be accountable to do, not just one keyboard warrior nuking parts if the web because a small part of them has things he finds objectionable.

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

#177

Post by syntaxing »

null0pointer wrote: post #168
syntaxing wrote: post #159

If I’m understanding this correctly, this has nothing to do with deplatforming or freedom of speech. Although motivated by self interest, someone found DDoS-guard’s dirty laundry and aired it to LACNIC.

While the underlying issue is legitimate (whether or not DDoS-Guard has enough physical presence in Belize), this is undeniably targeted selective enforcement with the intent to deplatform.

Can you explain more about how it is undeniable? I understand if we said it’s targeted reporting but I fail to see any evidence of targeted enforcement (as in if any high profile non-DDoS guard company would get the same treatment if someone reported the same issue).

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

#178

Post by tatersolid »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #67
chroem- wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If fascism is defined as the merger of corporation and state, does a dominant political party allying with major corporations to suppress a political opponent not ring alarm bells for fascism?

Fascism is when racism becomes state policy. Nearly always accompanied by a violent dictator. The US narrowly avoided devolving into a permanent fascist state. Now people who at least support human rights and democracy are in power.

> The US narrowly avoided devolving into a permanent fascist state.

This is a huge exaggeration. As looney as things got in early January, I am still certain the FBI or if necessary US military would have removed Trump from office if he refused to leave office or attempted to declare martial law. They are sworn to defend the constitution, not the sitting President.

America is not truly defined by its right-or-left fringe elements, despite the clickbait you see on the web and in the 24/7 TV news cycle. 90% of Americans don’t spew vitriol on Twitter or hate the political opposition. Most people get along. But old-fashioned democracy, compromise and pragmatic centrism doesn’t get clicks or sell ads.

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

#179

Post by duskwuff »

andrewflnr wrote: post #153
wtallis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's assuming that using fraudulently acquired IP allocations is a normal and common occurrence. It is not. This is very distinctly abnormal.

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

#180

Post by null0pointer »

syntaxing wrote: post #177
null0pointer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the underlying issue is legitimate (whether or not DDoS-Guard has enough physical presence in Belize), this is undeniably targeted selective enforcement with the intent to deplatform.

Can you explain more about how it is undeniable? I understand if we said it’s targeted reporting but I fail to see any evidence of targeted enforcement (as in if any high profile non-DDoS guard company would get the same treatment if someone reported the same issue).

Ok you're right. We would need more data points to determine whether the enforcement was selective or not.
Post reply on HN