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

211–220 of 327 posts

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

#211

Post by wolco5 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158
djrogers wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Free speech is a concept that exists outside of the US.

Free speech is about being able to express ideas and these can be supressed by private entities, communities or a number of non-government entities like a church.

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

#212

Post by wolco5 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #27
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…

> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse It's not really "fringe" groups that are the issue here; it's "extreme" groups - no-one is calling for the flat earthers to be deplatformed, for example. > Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust Probably but I'd guess only among the people who are already inclined that way already. > the population must always…

I believe deplatforming of flat earthers is already happening. Anyone who holds that position is not allowed on television and not allowed to run national tv ads and wouldn't be allowed to teach.

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

#213

Post by ikiris »

gundmc wrote: post #171
tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it was due to hosting well known terrorist organizations was my understanding.

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

#214

Post by syntaxing »

aaron695 wrote: post #197
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 Handb…

It is still target reporting. Not targeting enforcement. Deplatforming would be LACNIC terminating the addresses strictly because they host some sort of content. Terminating addresses because they lied on their contract is another story. Ron Guilmette targeting DDoS-Guard is true but that is still not deplatforming.

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

#215

Post by rodgerd »

richardARPANET wrote: post #30
inetknght wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dangerous speech isn't free.

I'm well aware of what speech is and is not legal under US law. Parler's TOS are inline with US law.

So is choosing not to do business with them.

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

#216

Post by wolco5 »

marmada wrote: post #114

To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler has equivalencies - AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler - The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit

It's kind of like trying to shutdown all muslim media after 911 because some terrorist will be using it to inspire.

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

#217

Post by rodgerd »

g6587yd wrote: post #40
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.

Not letting others speak IS fascism.

Give me money so I can quit my job and write full time. No? You fucking fascist.

Rupert Murdoch won't put Chomsky on prime-time Fox News? Fucking fascist.

Won't force Geology students to listen to flat earthers? Fucking fascist!

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

#218

Post by rodgerd »

azinman2 wrote: post #101
_wka6 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Well they may not exist in some very literal sense because they lost the war and their gov no longer exists, but it’s very easy to find sympathizers who have plenty of their memorabilia, fly their flags, use their salute, and take the ideas into modern times with things like a “Camp Auschwitz - Staff” sweater…

Ironically, trying to literalise language to control discourse is the most Orwellian - in the sense of IngSoc's Newspeak - thing present.

(I have the unfair advantage of actually having read 1984, which it seems unlikely most Parler enthusiasts have)

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

#219

Post by a254613e »

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…

>but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons

Can you name some examples of this where someone was fraudulently claiming IPs, but corresponding NICs refused to take action when provided evidence like in this case?

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

#220

Post by aww_dang »

bjeds wrote: post #9

The real story here I think is how LACNIC handled this. Who in their right mind will do infrastructural internet business in Latin America going forward if some self-righteous American man can cause them to revoke IP:s assigned to your company? There is no indication that this Russian internet provider - who claim they are operating in Belize - had a say in the revocation of this IP space. Looking at the website of D…

Russia and all things Russian appear to have become something of a scare word. There's a palatable innuendo here. Cyber security alarmists and internet do-gooders wouldn't use the same tone to note that a firm is located in Connecticut or Michigan.
Post reply on HN