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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#391

Post by banannaise »

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 Daily Stormer is a Nazi website dedicated to promoting genocide and organizing people who support genocide. That's not "things that I don't like" unless your argument is that we shouldn't actually do anything about genocide until the genocide has been done.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#392

Post by s_ting765 »

For how long will the majority of internet users be policed by special interest groups though? How far along till we all noticed it's gone too far?

There are minority groups that propagate general hate too only that their brand of hate is sanctioned. Cloudflare can't make it up for whatever loopholes that exist outside the law. I wouldn't expect any company to go any further than required either.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#393

Post by somesortofthing »

tauntz wrote: post #227
Borgz wrote: post #79

It's rather disappointing that Cloudflare's policy is to not host content that is "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", but they do not apply that same policy to content that they provide DDoS mitigation services for. I don't see why their policies sh…

Hosting and DDoS protection are different services. Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation - one of them can morally refuse their services to people that they think are doing wrong/illegal/immoral things, the other one doesn't. Not that I agree or disagree with this argument - just wanted to point out what their reasoning seems to be.

> Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation

This is kind of a ridiculous comparison. A real-world landlord is a private individual extracting rent from their tenants while a real-world fire department is a publicly funded institution with a duty to protect everyone.

Cloudflare offers both its hosting and DDOS services as a private company. They aren't morally obligated to provide anything, regardless of whether the DDOS protection is offered for free.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#394

Post by afiori »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #28
hammyhavoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bet they'd get attacked if they ever stopped using a proxy.

When I checked last week, their origin IP was trivially available. I found it by typing “kiwifarms” into search.censys.io

Right now their server can simply block all IPs and all certs not from Cloudflare.

Firewalls resists DDoS better than web servers and DBs

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#395

Post by ladyattis »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #199
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Transparency in a society is extremely important. It is a fundamental right to gather and publish information bringing to the publics attention harmful, disturbing and potentially illegal behavior. What principled political speech should be protected you ask? My answer is investigative journalism. If you believe investigative journalism should exist and plays an important function in society, you should have no probl…

How exactly is Kiwi Farms helping with this when the vast majority of their forum threads are like "LOL tr--ns talking about X." Seriously, just go skim their site, tell me exactly where they fulfill this function?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#396

Post by throwrqX »

devwastaken wrote: post #307
a_shovel wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…

And when that happens, Cloudflare is in the perfect position to provide evidence. Your unwittingly advocating for these websites to use more sophisticated methods, where their actions will be much harder to prove and prosecute. If not Cloudflare, then someone else, that's the reality of it. We do not live in a world of no harm and never will we. All we can do is manage it.

I can't find it now but I remember reading an article a while back about how the FBI with several other worldwide law enforcement partner took down a terrorist website, but behind the scenes the CIA or NSA wasn't happy about it because they had all the information in one place they could tap but now that the FBI disrupted that it made their job harder.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#397

Post by patmcc »

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.

True.

Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere. Someone walks up to it and sets it on fire. Should the local fire department put it out? Assume it's not going to spread to other buildings/etc.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#398

Post by FrecklySunbeam »

rndgermandude wrote: post #377
FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide? This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to th…

Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#399

Post by phillipcarter »

computerfriend wrote: post #274
jasonshaev wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Protect your right to say it..." from _the government_. There has never been a reasonable expectation that private businesses are or should be required to allow all speech. Doing so prevents the business from exercising their own first amendment protections.

Nobody is talking about 1A. Freedom of speech is a principle. That there are laws codifying it is incidental.

Stop shifting the goalposts.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#400

Post by Mindwipe »

judge2020 wrote: post #175
sealeck wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that they don't respect court verdicts - e.g. in one case they lost against an Italian court "US-based Cloudflare disagreed. It countered that the Italian court didn’t have jurisdiction and that the e-Commerce directive didn’t apply to foreign companies, but those objections were rejected." How can you argue that a legal ruling is legally invalid (besides appealing it) and use this as a supposed justification…

Their point for not respecting verdicts is: > Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of…

That's exactly what happened with FOSTA and they roll over and ask for their tummies to be tickled, because Cloudflare's official policy is that the lives of sex workers isn't terribly important.
Post reply on HN