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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#631

Post by aa9a0s9dsljk »

ladyattis wrote: post #615
aa9a0s9dsljk wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Honestly, I agree that there needs to be work done. I think the first step is to get the police to not be as ignorant as they are. The fact that Keffals tried to notify the police of a potential harassment effort and they chose to ignore her should've never happened. Police today are poorly trained and educated but still get an exorbitant budget. I think it's time for people to declaw them or retrain them or possibly…

Quite agree, but it also seems like that won't change for many years. This is why the campaign to get service providers like cloudflare to drop hate and terror sites is the only real solution for the short term. Now that cloudflare has declared that they will keep providing services to the hate and terror sites (and the sites that attack them, remember), its an open question what will happen next.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#632

Post by QuinnWilton »

bakugo wrote: post #547
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

Quoted post unavailable.

It's difficult to take comments like this in good faith when the Github profile linked on your account prominently features your signature on a letter calling for Richard Stallman to be reinstated to the FSF after his resignation, following his comments defending sex with minors and child pornography.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#633

Post by wahnfrieden »

vorpalhex wrote: post #543
splitrocket wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% concur. Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government. You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publish their books. You, as an individual, and corporations as entities are emphatically not the government.

But you as a private individual or company can choose to hold the right to free speech in high regard.

check the paradox of tolerance

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#634

Post by DoctorOW »

phillipcarter wrote: post #613
DoctorOW wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely struggling to see how this answers my question. You continually discuss laws when I made it abundantly clear that because laws are, as you put it, Calvinball they are irrelevant to what should be done. > CloudFlare (a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms So too is Illinois to stop police protection of Nazi activists. I ask again, why SHOULD one organization protect speech and anoth…

I think you're losing the plot here. Nothing has any moral obligation to do anything in this universe. Morality doesn't exist. And we're all just making it up as we go. Now that we've established that nothing matters, the reason is because a lot of us feel that Cloudflare should do something about it.

Bloody hell, I am definitely losing the plot. The reason you feel that way is because a lot of other people do? You have absolutely no rationale or thought process for the disparities between organizations x and y except that people are mad at organization y and not organization x?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#635

Post by DoctorOW »

nightpool wrote: post #545
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…

> That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires This is a false equivalence, because fire departments are public utilities provided and regulated by the state. Cloudflare is a private business. If Cloudflare was democratically elected by its constituents, and it was accountable and answerable to them, then I would agree with them that they have a responsibil…

> I'm okay if Cloudflare decides to terminate one or two of the biggest, most important harassment sites using their platform per year—doing something is better than doing nothing.

I'm sorry, I'd only ever heard of Kiwifarms yesterday. I am also okay with that, but I do genuinely believe there will always be a next one. People forget they made the exact same comments before caving on 8chan and the Daily Stormer. As these incidents get closer together I predict we're reaching that 1-2 site a year rate. If I can backpeddle a little on my parent comment, I far less care about any of these specific websites than the implications of Cloudflare not giving the big "We hate to do this" speech beforehand.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#636

Post by rcoveson »

tambourine_man wrote: post #582
rcoveson wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quote it as written: "organizations made up of human beings providing important services to the general public"; not merely "group made up of human beings."

An organization is more specific than a "group."

They both provide services to the general public, i.e. they are indiscriminant in who their clients are. This is different from, say, a corporate law firm that might decide to take just a handful of cases at a time and be selective about it.

And finally, their services are important, as in livelihood-saving. Of course, firefighters are sometimes life saving, so a better analogy would be firefighters working for agri-business, but "firefighters" still fits better than, say, "AMC theaters" because of the importance of the service offered.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#637

Post by stormbrew »

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…

> the latter makes me more hopeful as someone in that specific minority community.

I'm curious what you think the "balancing" donation/action/whatever cloudflare could do to counteract the very real harms kf causes are?

This isn't a political action group that takes donations and lobbies. It's a site where people's personal information is offered up to anyone who wants it, knowing that many of those people want to do harm with it. The owners and moderators know all of this and both allow and encourage it.

I think this kind of "but we donate!" approach is both an admission that they enable harm, and a completely inadequate to the situation here.

Yes, this should be an issue for law enforcement. But this has been going on for years and nothing has been done, in spite of many efforts being made and many people literally going into hiding due to harassment from this site.

So how is cloudflare going to make this one right to their ERG?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#638

Post by colechristensen »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #328
ajvs wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by that exactly?

Twitter mobs can drive people to get fired, websites or companies to shut down... But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing. People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.

>People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.

People are saying "Call the FBI, not Cloudflare"

If people are doing things that break the law, it's law enforcement's job to do the protecting, not an Internet company providing services.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#639

Post by leesalminen »

noptd wrote: post #525
banannaise wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mobs always attack the weakest link. KF is not widely known- if it were canceled basically nobody would care.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#640

Post by boppo1 »

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?

Have you ever heard of Godwin's law?
Post reply on HN