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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#361

Post by mmmpop »

chc wrote: post #263
mmmpop wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

That was not my definition. Kiwi Farms will post their target's private info, the private info of everyone their target knows, send death threats to their target and their family, report false crimes to try and get SWAT teams to kill their target, etc. Ben Shapiro doesn't seem like a good person and I suspect he is probably sympathetic to many terrorists, but he is not himself a terrorist as far as I know.

So you don't sympathize with a single "terrorist" on the planet? Don't lie.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#362

Post by howdyfolks »

Pxtl wrote: post #219
fjordelectro wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like something for the courts to handle and not cloudflare. https://casetext.com/case/scott-v-moon-1

You could say that about a lot of things that are normally covered by abuse policies. For example, we expect hosts to remove content that violate copyright, why is copyright more worthy of protection at the corporate level than defamation?

Because society created laws in that way?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#363

Post by throwrqX »

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #309
throwrqX wrote: post #282

Earlier 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

There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#364

Post by dmatech »

Bigpet wrote: post #319
sascha_sl wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, what willful ignorance. KF is the kind of "technically legal" operation that the charge of racketeering was invented for. Everyone knows what's happening and why things are laid out as they are, but nobody immediately responsible for the illegal act can be found.

Then charge them with racketeering. If that doesn't work make the part you don't like illegal. Enshrine something like the "right to be forgotten" stuff into law and make them take down threads if the people they refer to don't want them up. I know it's hard to word something like a "right to be forgotten" without making it to broad and a tool for abuse of chilling speech but it seems worth the effort if the conseque…

A "right to be forgotten" is probably fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment in the USA. While people have the right to their own identity, they do not have the right to absolute control over their reputations. The best they can do is sue when they are defamed.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#367

Post by joshuamorton »

Natsu wrote: post #248
systemvoltage wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought about the reverse side of your argument? Someone falsely accusing you or your persons of insert-your-favorite-harm and then having your life upended by the social justice mob or corporate actions? It needs to go through a trial. That's what its for.

> Have you thought about the reverse side of your argument? Someone falsely accusing you or your persons of insert-your-favorite-harm and then having your life upended by the social justice mob or corporate actions? I doubt they'd be as happy if sites that host speech critical of MTG were being held responsible for contributing to the three SWATings she had recently, to name the most recent example, but this is too e…

I mean, given that most signs point to the culprit site there being kiwifarms, yes, yes!

More generally, swatting people is bad (and also illegal!), people should not do it. Sites that encourage it should not be supported. No equivocation there.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#368

Post by pseudalopex »

howdyfolks wrote: post #346
pseudalopex wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Someone said The Daily Stormer and 8Chan are online today.[1] But this would mean Cloudflare can stop doing business with Kiwi Farms without limiting speech. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32662368

It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online

> It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online

How is it the opposite?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#369

Post by empathy_m »

jefftk wrote: post #20

Two times in the past we decided to terminate content from our security services because we found it reprehensible. In 2017, we terminated the neo-Nazi troll site The Daily Stormer. And in 2019, we terminated the conspiracy theory forum 8chan. In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights o…

Yes that's how I read it, too - they regret having taken those sites down and wouldn't do it again.

This feels like it's going in the opposite direction of Yishan's "Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul" ( https://web.archive.org/web/20140913105157/http://www.reddit... ) and reddit's subsequent evolution.

In retrospect I was a little naive in the 90s. I read The Hacker Manifesto, I read "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it", I didn't stop to think what would happen when weev was in charge.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#370

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

sealeck wrote: post #190
weberer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. They're attacking KiwiFarms for their agenda of trying to drive people to commit suicide.

Those two statements are not in contradiction though. If KiwiFarms is trying to get people to commit suicide in a willful way that breaks the law, surely they can be brought before the law. If you are attempting to DDoS the infrastructure of somebody because you disagree with them, you are committing an illegal act too. Perhaps terrorism is a bit far, but what gives the people who commit the DDoS the right to do so? No society should allow people to be punished without a due process.

I also can't go shoot up suspected criminals, that's called vigilantism and is criminal. Even if I knew they did it.

Post reply on HN