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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#581

Post by Cyberdog »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #516
Cyberdog wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nothing like the SJWs by any stretch of the imagination. The fact of the matter is that Reddit/ResetERA/Twitter/DailyKos is a cesspit full of people who revel in obsessing over people and then harassing them not only at their jobs but even through their private communications (phone numbers, personal email addresses, etc). How you react if dozens of people just started calling you at all hours because you're Chr…

A really key difference that I feel gets missed is the "who swung first" aspect. A great deal of what gets called "cancel culture" is people reacting to someone behaving in a way that harms others, including but not limited to... - Discrimination (gender, orientation, religion, race, whatever) - Harassment - Threats, ranging from the subtle to the overt - Actual violence Quite often, the targets of this behavior have…

You are pretty much saying "but it's okay when we do it."

If doxing and criticizing people for their beliefs and practices is not okay for the right to do, then it's not okay for the left to do either.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#582

Post by tambourine_man »

rcoveson wrote: post #481
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…

There are ways in which they are "completely different beasts" and ways in which they are similar. In that they are both organizations made up of human beings providing important services to the general public, they are the similar. I think that's the similarity that was being emphasized by the analogy. The analogy still works if you imagine private firefighters (the kind you might contract for a farming operation) i…

There are ways in which water and oil are similar. There are also analogies which are of little use. When you reach for a group “made up of human beings” as a similarity, you clinging on the latter.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#583

Post by ladyattis »

Georgelemental wrote: post #544
ladyattis wrote: post #381

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…

"The problem isn't that certain customers, in my personal biased subjective opinion that is subject to no oversight whatsoever, are bad people who advocate doing bad things. The real problem is that certain customers, in my personal biased subjective opinion that is subject to no oversight whatsoever, are bad people who advocate doing bad things."

Things being subjective doesn't mean they're not true. What you mean to say is my arbitrary or biased view, which also doesn't invalidate their truthfulness. The fact that folks like you think subjectivity means arbitrary or biased or that it has no truth or factual value is disturbing and your position is also a deflection. In the United States, you can be sued at any time by other private parties. The fact that Josh Moon refuses to reign in his site users because he agrees with them (you can look in the posts he's made) means any business you do with them sets you up for liability. And guess what? Cloud Flare's CEO is endangering the bottom line and if I was a minority holder I'd be calling up the board to override his decisions, even if it meant a complete stockholder revolt against him. Letting the rejects of the most rejected group of people congregate and do misdeeds that either are explicitly illegal or border on illegality isn't a sound business decision. Wake me up you have an actual argument rather than trying to do 4chan level antics and mockery.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#584

Post by protomyth »

newman314 wrote: post #576
colechristensen wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

This reeks of "both-siding" which is insanely frustrating for me. Look, I get opening a can of worms and "stay out of my business" but at the same time, we need to be able as a society be able to and be unafraid to say when things are clearly bad. "Nazism is bad" EOM That wasn't so hard, was it?

How about social media mobs unfairly categorizes people and corporations that listen to mobs or committees are untrustworthy.

we need to be able as a society be able to and be unafraid to say when things are clearly bad.

Sadly, "disagrees with me" is considered bad and called vile insults these days.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#585

Post by ajvs »

computerfriend wrote: post #288

This is a cycle. Some day, fascists will attack Cloudflare for protecting a site that hosts e.g. the home addresses of supreme court judges that ruled in favour of reducing civil liberties. Everyone criticising Cloudflare now had better remember it when the time comes and they realise that they don't actually care about frameworks and values, only about winning.

Except that example is already against their existing ToS.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#586

Post by elefantastisch »

Borgz wrote: post #161
elefantastisch wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They address this: > Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for silencing vulnerable groups, but are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing problematic content online. We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.

So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it.

It's not that we value police procedure more than we value the life of the victim. We value rule of law and due process as a society more than any individual gap in applying justice in a given case.

Yes, if we ignore procedure and lock that murderer up anyway, we will have done better justice for the victim. But then we will no longer have a functioning criminal justice system, and that's much worse in the long run.

If Cloudflare allows DDoS to take down these horrible sites, the world will definitely be a better place in many ways. But then it will also be a world where we deal with problems via DDoS and whether you get to keep your site up or have it DDoSed is subject to the whims of Cloudflare. DDoSing sites won't be "wrong" anymore, it'll be a question of whether they deserved it or not.

This is not how we do justice as a society. If someone punches you in the face without instigation, we don't ask if you deserved it, we charge them with assault.

Cloudflare allowing DDoS of content they don't like would be a bit like allowing assault of people we don't like. Maybe there are some people we're happy to see punched in the face, but in the long run, our society suffers.

Protecting people from getting punched in the face, even when they deserve it, is fundamental to maintaining rule of law in society. Wrongdoers are punished after due process of law, not arbitrarily by any vigilante who decides to give them what they deserve.

That is essentially what Cloudflare is arguing.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#587

Post by _vvaw »

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

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#588

Post by peppermint_tea »

Ticklee wrote: post #488
peppermint_tea wrote: post #474

wow, so many comments that leads nowhere (law/technical/etc)... what about a counterprotest? Like bigots voicing their opinions on a street corner would attract. I assume everyone here have a VPN... would be fun to post some trans positive messages on their rotten kiwi farm.

Well the actual reason is of course that the people involved with this movement do not want their threads read. It shines a light on everything shady, dishonest and bad they have done, social media influencers want to appear holy as a saint in front of their audience as it increases their influence, so telling your entire audience to engage with a thread that makes you look like a horrible person is a bad move.

what I was saying is, let's hop on a vpn and put a bit of humanity in their venom

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#589

Post by taxyz »

phillipcarter wrote: post #500
xdennis wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology. Let me take a stab in the dark: you think "free speech" refers only to the United States' First Amendment, and not a universal principle, which: * according to Wikipedia, is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction"…

You're shifting goalposts.

Just stating the type of fallacy being made is not evidence the fallacy occurred.

You should qualify how the goalpost is being shifted. I don’t see any evidence to your claim.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#590

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

newman314 wrote: post #576
colechristensen wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

This reeks of "both-siding" which is insanely frustrating for me. Look, I get opening a can of worms and "stay out of my business" but at the same time, we need to be able as a society be able to and be unafraid to say when things are clearly bad. "Nazism is bad" EOM That wasn't so hard, was it?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN