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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#651

Post by zja »

devwastaken wrote: post #307
a_shovel wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…

And when that happens, Cloudflare is in the perfect position to provide evidence. Your unwittingly advocating for these websites to use more sophisticated methods, where their actions will be much harder to prove and prosecute. If not Cloudflare, then someone else, that's the reality of it. We do not live in a world of no harm and never will we. All we can do is manage it.

> If not Cloudflare, then someone else, that's the reality of it.

When has this ever been a valid excuse for bad behavior?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#652

Post by devmor »

colechristensen wrote: post #565
helloworld97 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what's a minority?

By "vocal minority" I mean a small but loud group, the literal definition of minority not the social justice sense of some oppressed group.

Oh, so like a forum full of people addicted to internet stalking?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#653

Post by throw_a_grenade »

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?

> "Nazism is bad"

Yes, it pretty much is. Over here it's against the law to futher it. What's wrong with enshrining this principle in the actual law, that 1) affects the whole society, not just users of one particular corporation, 2) it's enforcement is dispensed by an actual court, not a PR department pushed by a twitter mob?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#654

Post by ArrayBoundCheck »

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 don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do - Gavin B

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#655

Post by schleck8 »

yanderekko wrote: post #420
squeaky-clean wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Are you actually implying that Twitter mobs haven't done all of these things too? This is obviously wrong.

So we should keep up Kiwifarms because something similar has happened on Twitter? Is that the logic? Instead of removing one of the evils let's keep them both up because fairness or something like that?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#656

Post by DoctorOW »

stormbrew wrote: post #637
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…

> 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 don't think that specific passage was in reference to KiwiFarm's paid plan.

> 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.

This is the specific contradiction I'm trying to avoid. It feels incredibly odd to me to look at a coordinated campaign of harassers and think "it should be easier for organized groups of people to control the conversation". You can look at my comments in this thread or in others, I'm totally cool every time hateful shitbags are taken off the internet and I fight back when they're defended. I'm just not in favor of any broad policy that puts one organization in control of speech.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#657

Post by amrocha »

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 my trans friends get relentlessly harassed and cyber bullied until they kill themselves. Can I have that?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#658

Post by google234123 »

sophacles wrote: post #454
dfsadfas wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Imagine thinking this drivel somehow applied to this thread. You shouldn't make new accounts for this sort of thing you know - cowards who hide from perfectly legal doxxing and "investigative journalism" in defense of such "harmless" actions come across as sus. Why should you be ashamed of your opinion - you are entitled to free speech right?

It’s actually relevant since it’s one of the only sites on the web where you can express an opinion like that and not be removed

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#659

Post by mojzu »

colechristensen wrote: post #597
mojzu wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point and largely agree with the idea that corporations shouldn't become de-facto governments with regard to morality/free-speech/etc. However I think it's important to acknowledge that there's a really difficult problem to solve here with regards to spam, astroturfing and harassment/trolling (if not more areas) where allowing everything that is technically legal would make most online spaces unbear…

It is not Cloudflare's job to moderate a website they provide network services to. This is a different issue than a social network doing moderation and spam prevention on its own platform. It is not Cloudflare's job to protect Twitter or wherever else from a forum of assholes.

Although I'd agree there is a difference I think these issues are closer than you think, for example if Cloudflare was providing network services to a website dedicated to spam, trolling or harrassment. These things in many jurisdictions are not illegal but many companies will refuse to support them because they are actively bad for business (driving existing or potential customers away, making their own products worse, etc.). Ideals can be great but trying to apply them without considering the effects, intended or not, can lead to poor results

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#660

Post by schleck8 »

staringback wrote: post #336
judge2020 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet there are compilation videos of streamers being swatted on stream[0]. If someone has an address, all it takes are some anonymous calling techniques / a burner phone to traumatize the occupants by calling in a fake hostage situation or something of that caliber. 0: https://youtu.be/coa7tP54kDY?t=6

Are these people getting shot and killed on their stream? This is not related to the topic.

Yes, that has happened repeatedly before. People have been killed by swatting. In the United States of course.
Post reply on HN