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

191–200 of 327 posts

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

#191

Post by epakai »

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…

With 11-31K followers these aren't "top" antifa accounts. Ngo is just taking advantage of the demonization of anti-fascism to continue to create the image of an other that can be despised.

https://thebasebk.org/about/ https://www.revolutionaryabolition.org/about/ https://www.ramnyc.org/ https://jewishworker.org/about/

These are obviously left wing groups, but they seem to advocate a lot more than being just the anti- to fascism.

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

#192

Post by 542458 »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #124

this is vigilante justice. Is it a good idea for Facebook, amazon and random researchers on the web to hand out internet death sentences (as judge, jury and executioner)? without even any kind of due process? this is setting a potentially dangerous precedent going forward. having the FBI take the site down would be one thing but having FB or amazon or other sites do it without any kind of due process just seems wrong…

How is what the researcher did vigilante justice? The researcher found fraud, and then reported it to the appropriate authorities who investigated further acted on it. It would be vigilantism if he had gone outside of the proper channels to try to “solve” it himself, say, by hacking servers or something - but that’s not what happened.

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

#193

Post by CamperBob2 »

inetknght wrote: post #24
richardARPANET wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you praising someone with too much time on their hands attempting to limit freedom of speech? Really sad and pathetic.

Dangerous speech isn't free.

Then again, harmless speech never needed protecting in the first place.

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

#194

Post by danans »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #184
AshWolfy wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe. I never liked that study because people always read it like that. When people receive new information, they try to make it consistent with what they already believe by making the smallest possible change to the existing belief system to make them consistent. That could be as simple as just n…

> Even if private censorship is allowed, that doesn't make it a good idea if it causes people to leave for some Voat-like cesspool where they won't encounter ordinary people anymore.

Absent access to "ordinary people" to recruit to violent causes, the inhabitants of such a "cesspool" will likely bore of their own conversation.

If, as you state, any of them are engaged in illegal provocation to violence, they will be easier to find there, since they lack the shield generated by the noise of "ordinary" conversation.

Besides, nobody is going to "helped" away from violent provocation by casually interacting with them social media. The only thing that can help such people is real in-person and trusted interaction, like at church, with a community help group, or with a therapist.

At best social media can be used to identify candidates to be offered an off-ramp from the road they are on, but that needs to be done by people who do de-radicalization as a full time job or mission, not casual social media acquaintances. Very few people are dedicated to that kind of work today.

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

#195

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danans wrote: post #189
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

> Isn't the service currently down? They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-l... If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. > > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. > https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim ... From that article: "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that infl…

> They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard.

The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler".

> If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler.

Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue.

> "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"."

But that isn't the case where the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" came from and that quote doesn't even appear to cover the phrase itself, since a panic is potentially dangerous but not illegal.

Here's some more on why the phrase should be discontinued:

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Bottom line, it's too vague to mean anything because all it implies is that unprotected speech exists without specifying any meaningful boundaries for it, so people regularly quote it in support of arbitrary overreach.

> You don't need to worry, but the website is well within their rights to worry about what people are posting to their site and take action to limit that if they see fit.

But we were talking about tolerance.

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

#196

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danans wrote: post #194
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People dont like to think they are being tricked, and will actively reject truth if it contradicts what they already believe. I never liked that study because people always read it like that. When people receive new information, they try to make it consistent with what they already believe by making the smallest possible change to the existing belief system to make them consistent. That could be as simple as just n…

> Even if private censorship is allowed, that doesn't make it a good idea if it causes people to leave for some Voat-like cesspool where they won't encounter ordinary people anymore. Absent access to "ordinary people" to recruit to violent causes, the inhabitants of such a "cesspool" will likely bore of their own conversation. If, as you state, any of them are engaged in illegal provocation to violence, they will be…

> Absent access to "ordinary people" to recruit to violent causes, the inhabitants of such a "cesspool" will likely bore of their own conversation.

So then there is nothing at all to fear from Parler and all of the efforts to keep it offline are misguided?

> If, as you state, any of them are engaged in illegal provocation to violence, they will be easier to find there, since they lack the shield generated by the noise of "ordinary" conversation.

Even in a garbage fire like Voat, the vast majority of posts aren't illegal. You need the ordinary people there because they're the ones willing to report violence to the police when they see it.

> Besides, nobody is going to "helped" away from violent provocation by interacting with them social media. The only thing that can help such people are real in-person and community interaction, like at church

Something something COVID.

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

#197

Post by aaron695 »

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.

Not sure I get what you are saying, per article -

> 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.

By finding things someone or a company has done to deplatforming them, it's not deplatforming when they get deplatforming if?

Maybe try reading "The Dictator's Handbook", it might cover what your asking.

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

#198

Post by danans »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #195
danans wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the service currently down? They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. https://www.cnet.com/news/parler-website-is-back-online-in-l... If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. > > yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. > https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim ... From that article: "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that infl…

> They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler". > If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue. > "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and e…

> But we were talking about tolerance.

Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support.

Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to violence, which is their right. Good for them for exercising it, but nobody has to support them, nor should anyone be prevented from supporting them. Likewise, if there are consequences (commericial or legal) for tolerating incitement to violence, Parler owns those too.

You are also free to tolerate it and provide services to support those who do.

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

#199

Post by AnthonyMouse »

danans wrote: post #198
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are working on getting it up and running under a Russian ISP, DDos-Guard. The article this discussion is attached to is called "DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler". > If sites like Gab and its ilk can figure it out, so cab Parler. Parler was bigger than Gab. It remains to be seen whether the scale presents an issue. > "[In Brandenburg v. Ohio] the Court held that inflammatory speech--and e…

> But we were talking about tolerance. Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support. Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to…

> Tolerance for incitement to violence?

That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

> Parler clearly does, which is their right.

No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

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

#200

Post by _yoqn »

D13Fd wrote: post #70
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.

Free speech means that the government cannot interfere with your speech (with certain exceptions). It's an essential right to any free democracy. But it absolutely does not mean that other people have to like you, listen to you, sell goods to you, or allow you to use their platform.

Except for when governments pressure private companies to do those things that they can't do directly. Pretty sure there's a law against that but I can't remember the name.
Post reply on HN