The problem isn't that certain customers are bigots, but that they actively seek to allow harm to be done by their own end users like Kiwi Farms. The fact they have an exhaustive wikipedia for one person (Chris Chan) should have been the "nope" moment for them. Like if I was a host or a provider of a service and Josh Moon came to me with his site I'd just turn him away because he's like nuclear waste dangerous. It's not a matter of morals, it's a matter of social vs anti-social. Josh Moon, his own mother, and many of the loudest users on Kiwi Farms are anti-social to such an extreme that if they even tried to do their antics in real life beyond SWATing and cyberstalking, they'd probably be in prison now. It's not a matter of dealing with something like some religious organization that thinks being gay or trans is immoral, it's a group of thugs that skirt the law through various means and sometimes even cross into illegal acts that are hard to track/monitor (ex. SWATing).
Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare. It's in the TOS. They're not a utility, so yes, they get to decide.
Ok then: they have decided, and they decided not to take KF down. Their TOS gives them the lateral autonomy to decide what breaks the TOS, whether or not something violates their TOS, and how harsh of a punishment to enact.
Right. They get to decide to host these sites, and other people get to decide to organize legal economic actions against them, like boycotting. This seems like a normal and healthy part of a free market, no?
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence is there for the law enforcement apparatus not protecting transgender people in this particular case? Have their been similar cases for cisgender people where the law enforcement apparatus has cared more? I am not sure saying we need mob action to stop other mob action is a good long term solution.
Law enforcement is the tool being used to do the violence ffs, they’re not protecting anyone
Law enforcement are doing the right thing responding to potentially emergency situations. The problem isn't that they are responding to SWATing, the problem is people calling them in when there is no emergency.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Agreed, we have a justice system based on what we agreed as a society. The rule of law. If you want to prohibit speech to white supremacists, fine, let’s pass a law and if it doesn’t hold constitutional muster, go ahead convince everyone to amend the constitution. But since our founding fathers made this process difficult on purpose, let’s take a different approach: that’s what social justice is. It is anti-democrati…
Read the 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the government are delegated to the states, or to the people. What you describe as "social justice" is constitutional, if you want to fix that, change the constitution and make it illegal, but you're quite right, the founders made that difficult, perhaps because they believed mob justice had its place sometimes, I mean in the eyes of the British, what were the Unionists but a mob rallying behind blatantly illegal ideas?
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#385Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…
> Large corporations policing free speech
Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#386It's worth noting, for people unaware, that there are no suicides associate with the KiwifFarms. There have been people with threads who kave killed themselves, unrelated to them having threads, and one person who poorly faked a suicide after failing to extort the KiwiFarms into removing his thread. The site is a gossip site, not some boogeyman Law&Order-esque cyberhateden dedicated to cyberbullying gay people to death. It's absurd seeing the caterwauling the site has generated--they don't even reach the level of paparazzi who really do stalk people. All the KiwiFarms does is collect information that was already publicly available.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#387Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#388In my experience Cloudflare goes too far with offering their security services to everyone. There is a website that's constantly ripping and stealing artistic content from a community I used to be part of. They have an automated process for ripping and reuploading content not meant to be downloadable from small independent artists in this community without informing the artist, obtaining permission or anything. Outra…
This is not a Cloudflare problem. The copyright holders should follow the procedure in the DMCA to protect their content. If they're not willing to spend the time to do so then what can they expect? No one else is going to do their job for them.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#389> 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…
The negative value of a website being serviced by Cloudflare is usually significantly higher than the price they pay for the service. How much do you think Cloudflare donated for the 3 suicides caused by Kiwi Farms in the recent years?
> How much do you think Cloudflare donated for the 3 suicides caused by Kiwi Farms in the recent years?
Suicides that are awful, and were caused by Kiwi Farms. The quote I used clarified that Cloudflare's aim is to not profit from abhorrent behavior.
Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach
#390Earlier 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".
If they are doing anything illegal (like coordinating terrorist attacks) we luckily have law enforcement agencies with lots of power to address that.
KF users have already SWATed someone if I recall correctly. So, they're already in the worse possible situation if any further evidence comes to light.