Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

blog.cloudflare.com

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#51

They talk a lot about "human rights" in this post. At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet?

> At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet?

If you're willing, I'd be interested to hear your own answer to the question you ask. It's an interesting question (though I'm not sure I agree with the premise(s), but I think that's a different conversation).

Also interesting would be to hear your answer to the reverse: At what point does someone's right to host whatever they want on the internet trump someone's right to personal safety and privacy?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#52

Never thought I'd see the Left trying to weaponize corporations to suppress speech they dislike. Reminds me a LOT of Evangelicals in the 2000s - I know that comparison has been made frequently but that's the last group that made a serious censorship push. I wonder how all of this will end? I support CloudFlare here - they should act as a utility, not as an arbiter of content. This ends poorly and one day will bite th…

> Reminds me a LOT of Evangelicals in the 2000s - I know that comparison has been made frequently but that's the last group that made a serious censorship push.

It's the exact same pattern: Zealots trying to use censorship to suppress those that don't adhere to their ideology. The reason it's confusing is because you're looking at it as a left/right issue when it's not. It's an authoritarian/libertine or extremists vs everyone else issue.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#53

If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

> given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running.

This is bullshit, there are a plenty of alternatives.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

> On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. Maybe we should additionally also focus on that problem as well. It should not be the case that you need to pay a protection racket just to be able to survive on the Internet. We d…

A protection racket implies collusion between attacker and defender, where the defender comes to you offering “protection”, but then comes again as an attacker to those who refuse. CloudFlare aren’t a protection racket; they’re just an ordinary for-hire private security service, for businesses in “bad parts of town.” They don’t come to anyone; people come to them. And they have any facility for originating outbound requests from any of the sites they’re protecting, so they can’t be used to facilitate an attack, either. (Any more than you’d say that the private security firm hired to guard a mob hideout “facilitated the attack” when the mob leaves their hideout under the firm’s care to go attack people elsewhere.)

> procedures to get nation states that are a clear and consistent threat to everyone else off the Internet

This is the thing: cutting off diplomatic routes is almost never the right approach, even during a hot war. Even when someone is punching you in the face, you don’t want to tape their mouth and ears shut that they could be using to negotiate no-longer-punching-you-in-the-face.

The Internet is like the Olympics: it provides a way for the common people of different countries to see each-other’s good works and learn to respect one-another; even as the leaders of those countries, and asshole minorities within those countries, are making the news and fanning hawkish sentiment. Throwing out the counterbalance in such a scenario is something you’d expect an Emperor Palpatine figure to do, to engineer a war.

Tangent: the biggest tragedy of the modern era is that the US, Russia, and China have entirely-separate popular social networks and blogging/vlogging platforms. The rare Russian YouTuber (living outside of Russia) talking to an English-speaking audience about their real feelings toward the Russian government does so much to build bridges between countries; but there would be a ton more of them if YouTube and VK had a federated video sharing arrangement, the way YouTube does with e.g. music videos hosted on DailyMotion. If a posting on VK or Weibo could “spread out” to Western audiences without someone manually picking it up and reposting it on Western social networks, we’d see so much more cross-cultural engagement and understanding. If someone on Facebook could add someone on VK as a friend, even…

I have a strong feeling that if highly-evolved aliens ever tried to uplift our civilization, they’d start by demanding the removal of any artificially-imposed culture-level barriers to human-to-human communication.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#55
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

> given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. This is bullshit, there are a plenty of alternatives.

Such as...?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#56

If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.

8chan literally had sub boards dedicated to child pornography. Kiwi Farms is where people make fun of other people. They're really not comparable unless you believe "not being made fun of" is a human right.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#57

If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#58
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not going to war with nuclear armed states. At least not to a level we can't plausibly deny.

Heh, I'm not calling for tanks rolling on anyone else but the Russians at that moment. But taking down national assets? Hacking them back to steal information just like they do against us? Why the fuck not? If you let bullies bully around without consequences, they will only escalate, and it's high time someone takes on these four.

> Heh, I'm not calling for tanks rolling on anyone else but the Russians at that moment. But taking down national assets? Hacking them back to steal information just like they do against us?

What makes you think the US military + CIA aren’t already doing plenty of this to Russia et al? They don’t talk about it, because plausible deniability is an asset. And because the US has so many allies to route traffic through, that plausible deniability can be very plausible.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#59

Never thought I'd see the Left trying to weaponize corporations to suppress speech they dislike. Reminds me a LOT of Evangelicals in the 2000s - I know that comparison has been made frequently but that's the last group that made a serious censorship push. I wonder how all of this will end? I support CloudFlare here - they should act as a utility, not as an arbiter of content. This ends poorly and one day will bite th…

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#60
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. This is bullshit, there are a plenty of alternatives.

Such as...?

OVH, Voxility, ddos-guard.net and many more.

Shit, even tiny providers like BuyVM offer good enough DDoS protection.

Post reply on HN