501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.
Takes some presumption to demand precision in terminology while being completely and totally incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.
"Free speech" for normal people means "the practical freedom to speak freely", not whatever nitpicking legalistic definition I infer you're using.
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?
> And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. No, it's not. Not everything that's bad is terrorism. Terrorism is specifically about using violence. Don't water down terms.
>the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberterrorism#Defining_cybert...
> 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?
> Cloudflare launched nearly twelve years ago.
I wonder if they are going to keep updating it as time passes…
> 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…
You make a good point that policing who is who is difficult enough that letting bad guys pay $20 month or whatever is "cheaper" than actively validating who they are and then kicking them off your service for moral reasons. I get the feeling that 9/10 times these bad actors are on the cheapest cheapo plan available so it's actually very expensive to deal many tiny customers versus one huge one. Oh, but wait, CloudFla…
Part of the reason for my position as stated above and throughout the thread. I believe that SPECIFICALLY at Cloudflare's scale, they have more control than most governments in the realm of speech. Therefore, they are MORALLY (not legally) required to enact the same social contract. I believe any alternative where they break that social contract will have unintentional repercussions for minority groups.
To have my position changed, I would need to be convinced those repercussions wouldn't happen in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…
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…
If you don't - then the legal standards you have will be those of the worst country in the world. If Iran and North Korea issue court rulings banning cloudflare, should that affect people using cloudflare everywhere else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…
The point here is that Cloudflare's core product, despite being run by a private for-profit company, is as close to an essential service as it gets in the digital world. This is not the same as saying "posting on Twitter is a civil right"
Not having the legal obligations of a utility, while acting like one (i.e., getting to pull the "neutrality" card in the face of public pressure to drop nazis) is not okay.
> 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…
> We don't and won't talk about these efforts publicly because we don't do them for marketing purposes in a post that further goes out of its way to say, "look at these morally good things we're doing (Galileo and Athenian) that aren't themselves part of the abuse process, and then has their logos as two of the three images in the article body? Okay, sure, this may not strictly be marketing material insofar as it's n…
Yes, they market some other things they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to prove allegations of abuse by skilled actors that know how to use their tools (tools that are really easy to use). KF's lead admin states it plainly: use a VPN, because KF complies with subpoenas. If folks were committing high-end acts of terrorism against elected officials regularly, the baddies might not be safe. But if you're a trans streamer with a small following, if the fol…
> Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to prove allegations of abuse by skilled actors that know how to use their tools (tools that are really easy to use). so the problem is actually somewhere else.
That doesn't mean they don't lower the barrier to entry for good, bad, and ostensibly not bad but we all know whose side they're on actors alike. Just means my comment and lived experiences were just not perfectly applicable.