[deleted]
Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and every large platform. There is so much harassment, doxing, and other disturbing behavior on all the platforms.
The owners of those platforms don't actively encourage that content, and it makes up a small portion of the content rather than the main purpose
I'm not sure that it is the main purpose of KiwiFarms. There appears to be a large number of posts not related to any of that behavior. I don't use KiwiFarms so maybe I just don't know where all these doxing posts are?
Also, due to the sheer size, Twitter and the others almost certainly have significantly more of these types of posts.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you have at least one example of this scenario (gay Cloudflare employee gets doxxed and harassed) ready to tell us about, right?
I haven't checked, but I expect the chilling effect is getting most of them to not rock the boat too hard. If you want an example for such targeting though, Liz Fong-Jones has a thread on Kiwifarms because she's outspoken and worked at Google (and thus being seen as more influential / more of a threat). The thread has also significantly slowed down after she left Google.
[flagged]
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#324Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#325It's a thoughtful document and I appreciate the time it took to write it. I think there may be a missing factor in their decision-making process. I'll quote the document itself: "We also believe that an Internet where cyberattacks are used to silence what's online is a broken Internet, no matter how much we may have empathy for the ends." That seems correct to me. It is intuitively understandable how it applies to so…
It is not "less clear" how this applies to Kiwifarms. Their TOS says they "may" remove content that:
"Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public."
Kiwifarms doxxing and swatting is documented six ways from Sunday, and it's hardly just keffals.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#326I disagree with CloudFlare's distinction between "hosting" and "security services". From a technical perspective, CloudFlare is still holding the TLS certs[0] for servers behind their reverse proxy and fronting the bandwidth for those sites. Legally speaking, there is also no basis for this distinction; the law does not chase pointers.
The CloudFlare argument dances around the central complaint people have with their service today. That is, distributing personal information is a cyberattack. Doxxing and harassment are forms of speech-shaped censorship that exists to cause people to stop talking and delete their account. Forums that act as clearinghouses for dox are using their reverse proxy, and CloudFlare refuses to act against a violation of their own AUP under the belief that this would somehow create a precedent against other sites we don't find abhorrent.
My nightmare scenario is actually the opposite: CloudFlare does not act on harassment campaigns, someone important gets mad about it, and they pass a law creating a new kind of intermediary liability specifically designed to force CloudFlare to do so. The history of intermediary liability[1] is such that most companies do not bother defending their customers over it, and just chuck it to automated systems or underpaid and overworked reviewers that will operate on a guilty-until-proven-guilty system. And like I mentioned, the law will not respect CloudFlare's internal distinction between origin and proxy servers.
So we have two choices:
1. CloudFlare enforces their AUP on at least the most obvious targets of criticism.
2. They do nothing until some country makes them do something, and the state of Internet hosting gets slightly worse.
We're currently on track #2 here. Safe harbors are something the EFF and friends had to fight for, and they are being slowly chipped away at as platforms get more and more power that they either do not use or abuse.
[0] Remember when principled techies hated CloudFlare because they were an effective MiTM on all web traffic? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
[1] DMCA 512, EUCD Article 17, EU TERREG, FOSTA, and others
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#327It's a thoughtful document and I appreciate the time it took to write it. I think there may be a missing factor in their decision-making process. I'll quote the document itself: "We also believe that an Internet where cyberattacks are used to silence what's online is a broken Internet, no matter how much we may have empathy for the ends." That seems correct to me. It is intuitively understandable how it applies to so…
It is deeply weird to read the sentence "We also believe that an Internet where cyberattacks are used to silence what's online is a broken Internet, no matter how much we may have empathy for the ends." as a defense of KiwiFarms.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
This means that the KF mob can take people offline.
What do you mean by that exactly?
Twitter mobs can drive people to get fired, websites or companies to shut down... But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing.
People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter and Meta have policies against doxing. Difficulty preventing it at much larger scale does not make them equivalent to Kiwi Farms.
I don't care if they have policies. They have a huge amount of posts directly advocating violence and doxing that don't get removed.
> Difficulty preventing it at much larger scale does not make them equivalent to Kiwi Farms.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some users of KiwiFarms may have the agenda of wanting to drive people to commit suicide, you seem to be accusing the website as a whole of a) having an agenda and b) that agenda being to drive people to kill themselves What evidence is there for this? I haven't kept up with the website recently, is Null telling people to harass people to death?
Official statement from KF on Aug 26th: > What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and nobody is allowed to say anything about it. Wow very neutral site with no agenda here
Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.