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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#601

Post by aa9a0s9dsljk »

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…

Swatting is illegal, users of the site are doing the swatting, and KF simply pretends they aren't. They aren't arrested because the reason they use swatting is so they can't be tracked and thrown in jail themselves.

Meanwhile people's lives are ruined, their friends and family contacted, harassed, and they live in terror of people who congregate, anonymously, on that site, which is hosted out in the open with large corporations providing them services. A donation to the trevor project does nothing to protect those people, it just tells them their lives are expendable and they'll try to save someone else's.

Something must be done to stop them. I haven't heard any legal arguments for what could be done to stop them - one is told simply "you can't fight back, and you can't protect yourself, legally". When people are told that, they take more drastic measures, because the system that exists won't protect them.

Honestly a good proposal I've heard is to at minimum shut down SWATTing or add consequences and tracking of the requestor. Police being able to be consistently deployed on a ruse is, to me, insane.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#602

Post by taxyz »

phillipcarter wrote: post #499
sieabahlpark wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an American company hosting content for an American. The laws of America apply.

Precisely, they do! Which is why this isn't a free speech issue. Cloudflare is not a utility, nor are they a government entity.

As another commenter already pointed out, you’re treating first amendment and free speech as synonymous. If you request that others be precise with their language you should too.

This could be a free speech issue although not a first amendment issue. America does have a constitutional protection for citizens from their government in terms of free speech but we also place cultural value to it and laws that codify or restrict certain speech.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#603

Post by naasking »

CJefferson wrote: post #546
rndgermandude wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)? I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.

Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#604

Post by abigail95 »

phillipcarter wrote: post #436
Dracophoenix wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a utility doesn't make them any less of a de facto arbiter or any better of a company. Utilities can suck too. And, worse, they do it with the political backing of the state.

Indeed, it doesn't! But having much stricter legal obligations means there are more tools to hold their feet to the fire.

hold their feet to the fire to do what?

provide more network protection to objectionable websites?

i'm not getting the idea, reading this thread, that is what people here want.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#605

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

Cyberdog wrote: post #581
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am saying that if someone is harassing you when you haven't done anything to them, it should be pretty OK to tell others about the harassment and others should be able to say "I'm not going to interact / do business with that jerk."

"Beliefs and practices" is, again, leaving aside the "who swung first" aspect. Have all the beliefs and practices you want that don't involve harassing others. If your beliefs are homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist/etc and you choose to then "practice" those beliefs by harassing people you don't like, you swung first and you shouldn't be surprised if society looks down on you for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#606

Post by throwawayacc2 »

joshmanders wrote: post #304
wyre wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except using an alias online is a large part of internet culture. There are also a lot of people that do use their real names online. I’m not telling strangers, in-person or online, my address.

And that would make sense when it comes to people like you or others with aliases, but an alias like "wyre" or "pc" aren't exactly hiding themselves, just using a nickname, similarly to how in high school my peers called me Seneca (because my first day I wore my old school's t-shirt). I wasn't hiding who I am by going by that, just not using my real name. But "throwawayacc2" doesn't get that same meaning.

You are exactly the kind of person that makes me use names like this.

Ideas need no name. Argue the idea, not the human behind it.

Or failing that, perhaps consider relocating to China or Russia. You will find their attitudes to internet anonymity more to your liking.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#607

Post by afiori »

kevinh wrote: post #449
afiori wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Topics that cause disagreements not related to the job can be classified as personal and/or political. We should not take X as client, they are bad -> political We should not take X as client, my ex work there -> political We should not take X as client, they are unreliable with payments -> not political We should not take X as client, clients W, Y, and Z will drop us -> not political

Is a man talking about his wife political? Is a man talking about his husband political? Is a person transitioning political?

Talking about eating apples could be political in the definition I gave.

I don't think it is a good idea but it is a solution to the question of who get to decide what is political and what it not: everything not job related is political.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#608

Post by ladyattis »

Cyberdog wrote: post #595
ladyattis wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me how SJWs are going around with PII like your social security number, bank account number, passwords to social media accounts, and other sensitive data? Hint, no one that's a supposed SJW has ever done this on a large scale whereas Kiwi Farms users have and do. >Yes, I remember the "Moral Majority" era. I remember the religious right, the fundies, the evangelicals, and the grasp they had on speech. They still…

You seem to think there's no left wing in America when self-avowed leftists if not socialists are the ones who have been doing this whole #DropKiwifarms campaign in the first place. If there's no solid leftist base in America and western society as a whole, where is this opposition to supposedly alt-right fortress coming from? As for my age, I'm 40, which means I went to college between 2000 and 2004 - and was awash…

>You seem to think there's no left wing in America when self-avowed leftists if not socialists are the ones who have been doing this whole #DropKiwifarms campaign in the first place.

Some are socialists, but in terms of actual politically power individuals? No. Seriously, no. There's no socialist or social democratic institution that has power in DC or even a state government within the United States.

>If there's no solid leftist base in America and western society as a whole, where is this opposition to supposedly alt-right fortress coming from?

Liberals, seriously go study some political history. Liberalism is not left and it's not anti-capitalist. I don't think you really understand political history and theory which is surprising since I barely crack open political theory works by anyone since I find the subject boring.

>As for my age, I'm 40, which means I went to college between 2000 and 2004 - and was awash in leftist propaganda there

Same here, I'm 42. I'll say there's not much in the way of any leftist positions or professors beyond a few colleges here and there. Most have aged out and been replaced by social liberals (again liberalism is not left nor socialist).

>to the extent that I did not feel comfortable in some classrooms doing anything other than regurgitating what the professors were telling us despite what I actually believed.

That's probably because your views are further right than you want to divulge here. I won't press or bully you but I'll say that maybe you should ask yourself why you see socialists everywhere when everyone else who is a leftist or comes from a leftist position (I come from Mutualism but I use to be into Syndicalism) doesn't?

>To say that leftists do not have institutional power at least in academia is ridiculous, but of course it goes far beyond that.

Having a couple college departments is not having the commanding heights (I love FA Hayek's use of phrases). These aren't people who shake hands with Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, McCarthy, or McConnell. These aren't the people that get their proposals even into the hands of Biden's undersecretaries of any department. They don't get much play at billionaire retreats either. So, I'm absolutely confused as to what you define as power because it sure doesn't seem like it.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#609

Post by hankchinaski »

The intolerant minority bandwagon expecting big companies to take political stance to progress further their agendas, provokes me a utter sense of disgust. Democratically elected governments and regulators decide what should be censored. Not the loudest person in the room

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#610

Post by wahnfrieden »

pjc50 wrote: post #104
wahnfrieden wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the left also needs a gun rights and ownership culture

Possibly, but as soon as it became a thing it would be raided by the police, as per what happened to the Black Panthers.

btw BP were raided when they started taking direct action to support their communities through programs like the free breakfast service. guns didn’t do BP in, socialism did
Post reply on HN