71–80 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such as...?
OVH, Voxility, ddos-guard.net and many more. Shit, even tiny providers like BuyVM offer good enough DDoS protection.
> While we believe we have an obligation to restrict the content that we host ourselves, we do not believe we have the political legitimacy to determine generally what is and is not online by restricting security or core Internet services. If that content is harmful, the right place to restrict it is legislatively. Agreed, but realistically: for the near future there will be no legislative restriction in the US on ha…
Alternatively, such restrictions would just be unpopular, especially if they were seen as likely to be enforced in a way that lacks due process. Asking for powerful private companies to effectively restrict people's rights as an end-run for democracy and due process is rightfully unsettling.
It's interesting watching the responses roll in here. What CF is laying out here was essentially the standard viewpoint of western society until something like 10 years ago. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll protect your right to say it" is a basic tenant of liberalism. If you find that shocking, you should examine why that is.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
This was not some minority view among scholars and has been hugely influential on our (Western) legal systems for a long time (at least two centuries).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OVH, Voxility, ddos-guard.net and many more. Shit, even tiny providers like BuyVM offer good enough DDoS protection.
DDoS-protection is only part of it. You also need the ability to distinguish automated browsers from real ones, or you're going to have several full time jobs' worth of cleaning up spam comments from everything that even slightly resembles an input field.
Of course you could also just integrate a CAPTCHA service of your choice.
I am amazed at how cloudflare has turned around and become a reputable, reliable company re: arbitrary breaches of contract based on the CEO's personal opinions. After he breached contract with the Daily Stormer because of "a bad mood" I was sure it'd just devolve into a no-holds barred censorship-fest. Instead he's managing to hold the line against all of the authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other…
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…
Quoted post unavailable.
You absolutely can, and that's how CloudFlare got into this situation: by posting people's location on the internet they can be made vulnerable to SWATting.
> we've shifted away from violence as a means of enforcing social order
The intent of KF and similar absolutely is to use violence as a means of enforcing social order, by encouraging stochastic and opportunistic terrorism against trans people.
It's interesting watching the responses roll in here. What CF is laying out here was essentially the standard viewpoint of western society until something like 10 years ago. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll protect your right to say it" is a basic tenant of liberalism. If you find that shocking, you should examine why that is.
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…
Once they realized that they had a systematic advantage in petitioning hosting companies to deplatform disfavored content without due process, however, all of the underlying arguments for net neutrality were quietly discarded.
I don't see why their policies should differ depending on whether they are hosting or protecting the content in question. Either way, they are in part responsible for making that content accessible. I get the feeling that this is just an arbitrary distinction that they've made since hosting this content is more likely to have legal consequences for Cloudflare than simply providing DDoS mitigation services for it.
It's interesting watching the responses roll in here. What CF is laying out here was essentially the standard viewpoint of western society until something like 10 years ago. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll protect your right to say it" is a basic tenant of liberalism. If you find that shocking, you should examine why that is.