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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#521

Post by colechristensen »

DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> 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…

I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations. Wanting them to do so to further my worldview invites others to further the worldview of people I oppose. Leave the governing to the government, especially when it comes to systems with very broad usages (social networks, internet infrastructure, etc.)

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#522

Post by throwrqX »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #479
throwrqX wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The forum whose members spend a lot of time harassing people has a book club thread! They can't be bad people if they spend some of their non-harassing time reading!

There's lots of people on Facebook who talk about abusing children. So what? If you want to say the majority or a substantial percentage of the forum members harass people then show some evidence for it.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#523

Post by defen »

XorNot wrote: post #269
Chris2048 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we should discuss the problems with the term (and implications of) "stochastic terrorism" - namely, the conflation of a terrible, deliberate act with clear and consenting, perpetrators (terrorism); with that accusation that the wrong kind of free speech might lead to terrible consequences, and the implied accusation of malicious intent. Lets approach this as if ST was literally a crime - do the recipient comm…

There's a HackerNews user, goes by the handle Chris2048. And I just don't know what his problem is you know? Back in my day we had a solution for those types of people. If he wasn't hiding behind the internet I bet he wouldn't be so tough. Just imagine if we knew who he was and he couldn't hide like that, wouldn't that be great? I recommend you all go look up his posts. That's Chris2048 on HackerNews, have a really g…

This is called fedposting and it's basically the message board version of what the FBI does to entrap Muslim terrorists and white supremacists IRL. The problem you're going to have with making it a crime is, where do you draw the line?

If someone gets in front of a big crowd and says "Donald Trump is a fascist, he's the next Hitler", and then one of those people takes the matter into his own hands - do you think the speaker should be found guilty of a crime?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#524

Post by phillipcarter »

noptd wrote: post #519
phillipcarter wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're shifting goalposts.

No, you need to be more precise in your wording if you're not getting your intended message across.

There's really nothing else to say here other than, "no, you do".

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#525

Post by noptd »

banannaise wrote: post #348
agentdrtran wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a track record of brutal, lengthy harassment that has already pushed at least one person to take their own life after years of abuse.

Per wikipedia, the actual number is three. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Suicides_of_harassm...

I wonder how that number compares to other forums and social media sites.

Seems odd to me that everyone is hyper-fixating on that site, as tasteless as it may be, when much larger ones are given a pass.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#526

Post by phillipcarter »

colechristensen wrote: post #521
DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> 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…

I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations. Wanting them to do so to further my worldview invites others to further the worldview of people I oppose. Leave the governing to the government, especially when it comes to systems with very broad usages (social networks, internet infrastructure, etc.)

> I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations.

You already do. And that's actually a good thing. It means that in free societies like the USA, these companies are free to choose to do (or not do) business with whomever they choose. They are not free from the market reacting to those decisions, though.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#527

Post by wbl »

thegeekbin wrote: post #419
wbl wrote: post #145

Lots of ISPs have AUPs that would prohibit a site like KiwiFarms and the sky hasn't fallen. Why can't Cloudflare do the same?

It comes down to content moderation. If a company begins to moderate content that travels through its network, it can be held liable and forced to remove things that any entity or governmental body could disagree with. For example that means if the Republican Party was hosting on Cloudflare and the Democrat Party disagreed with the Republican Party, they could force Cloudflare to remove the Republican Party's website…

This hasn't happened with ISPs that prohibit harassment.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#528

Post by mjr00 »

colechristensen wrote: post #521
DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> 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…

I just don't want to live in a world where society is governed and censored by big corporations. Wanting them to do so to further my worldview invites others to further the worldview of people I oppose. Leave the governing to the government, especially when it comes to systems with very broad usages (social networks, internet infrastructure, etc.)

Agreed. IMO, people encouraging Cloudflare and other corporations to take political stances are very short-sighted. With the amount of Saudi Arabian and Chinese investment and influence continuing to grow in major corporations, you have to imagine that large tech corporations being aligned with west-coast US Democrat politics isn't going to last forever.

As the article says, "... [not providing services based on moral character] is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities."

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#529

Post by wahnfrieden »

phillipcarter wrote: post #508
activitypea wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

So then the answer is for Cloudflare to restructure their company. If they want to be seen as a utility so desperately, make it so! 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.

Cf themselves are disincentivized to make that change

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#530

Post by phillipcarter »

zzyzxd wrote: post #513
tambourine_man wrote: post #464

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…

> Cloudflare is not a public service Do we consider stuff like DNS, BGP to be public service? I mean, Cloudflare can affect everyone who uses Internet.

That could be an interesting discussion! Cloudflare should lead the charge and restructure their company to be legally considered a utility.
Post reply on HN