Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#101

Post by rhinoceraptor »

tekla wrote: post #87
sealeck wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not actually commendable to host content for white supremacists and transphobes. Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

The site in question is one of the most notorious doxxing and harassment forums, linked to multiple suicides of their victims over the years. I'm not sure what principled political speech you think is being protected here.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#102

Post by wahnfrieden »

RichardCNormos wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't project violence over the internet 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 ter…

Quoted post unavailable.

irrelevant degree for the term. you’re like a meteorologist flaunting their academic credentials to show that thundering herd is not a real thing in software engineering

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#103

Post by Pxtl »

tekla wrote: post #87
sealeck wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not actually commendable to host content for white supremacists and transphobes. Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

Free speech does not cover defamation.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#104

Post by pjc50 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #94
pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is why the left also needs a gun rights and ownership culture

Possibly, but as soon as it became a thing it would be raided by the police, as per what happened to the Black Panthers.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#105

Post by dang »

RichardCNormos wrote: post #59
throwayyy479087 wrote: post #35

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.

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. Your comment here is a noticeable step in that direction, relative to the GP. We want comments to step in exactly the opposite direction. This is not a site for ideological battle, which destroys the curious conversation HN is supposed to be for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#106

Post by yanderekko »

sealeck wrote: post #75
superkuh wrote: post #21

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…

It's not actually commendable to host content for white supremacists and transphobes. Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".

>Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".

Then I'm sure these activists will have no trouble moving proving their arguments in a courtroom, which is the proper space for such an assertion to be adjudicated.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#107

Post by wahnfrieden »

Borgz wrote: post #27
mardifoufs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8chan had the whole mass shooter thing. Comparing the two websites is very hyperbolic.

8chan users radicalize each other and encourage each other to commit mass shootings. KiwiFarms users post the personal information of people and encourage each other to harass them to the point of suicide. I don't see how they aren't comparable.

Swatting also results in shooting deaths

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#108

Post by weberer »

DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…

And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives.

These people who want to revoke DDoS protection for groups they don't like are essentially promoting terrorism. Why else would they fight so hard to remove DDoS protection, if not because they simply want those attacks to succeed?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#109

Post by yanderekko »

pjc50 wrote: post #96
yanderekko wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're really not comparable unless you believe "not being made fun of" is a human right. This is meant to be sarcastic but a lot of people basically do believe this. Most arguments about "stochastic terrorism" would implicitly aim to devalue/censor any sort of speech that "punched down".

Stochastic terrorism involves actual murder. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/buffalo-shooter-stocha...

Yes, and one can argue that everyone who denigrates group X is guilty of stochastic terrorism when an attack on group X occurs.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#110

Post by _-david-_ »

pjc50 wrote: post #85
throwayyy479087 wrote: post #35

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.

Accusing people of being terrorists sure sounds like incitement to violence. Perhaps you should stop perpetuating the problem?
Post reply on HN