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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#681

Post by yanderekko »

schleck8 wrote: post #655
yanderekko wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

The logic is that we shouldn't use some sort of "one drop" thinking to characterize a platform as broadly evil based on its worst users.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#682

Post by pvillano »

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote: post #649
tambourine_man wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is as close to an essential service as it gets in the digital world Thankfully, that's not true at all. About 16% of all sites use Cloudflare (80% of 20%) “Cloudflare is used by 79.8% of all the websites whose reverse proxy service we know. This is 19.1% of all websites.” https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cn-cloudflare >This is not the same as saying "posting on Twitter is a civil right" It's pretty much the…

Now do what % of people ever need rescuing by the fire service.

would you clarify your intent

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#683

Post by daemoens »

This Kiwifarms website uploaded Keffals new address and pinned it to the site. Someone has already taken a picture of her apartment and has already been swatted.

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565050152510947330

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1565061484073390084?s=20&...

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#685

Post by ldldksks »

skrebbel wrote: post #598
creeble wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe this site will help: ddosforhire.net They're a lovely recommendation/review site that lists a few dozen DDoS-for-hire sites. Take a random look at who hosts the individual sites' DNS. Their business is fundamentally a shake-down racket, disguised as a free-speech defender.

Wait, you’re suggesting they had board room discussions where they consciously, actively chose to protect and encourage ddos-for-hire sites because the threat of ddos attacks helps keep cloudflare in business?

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#686

Post by autoexec »

banannaise wrote: post #409
3sGPqEu59EGDFUn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are a terrorist group (or otherwise doing something "wrong"), then the appropriate means to deal with that is courts and law enforcement, not a CDN.

This assumes that law enforcement is both effective and fair. It is neither. "Police exist, therefore nobody except the police is allowed to do anything about anyone's bad behavior" is a terrible argument.

Our justice system is far from perfect, but it's better to have due process and transparency than to have corporations or mobs selectively enforcing "the law" however and whenever they see fit.

There's no reason to think that just because police exist people can't do anything about other people's bad behavior though. For example, when someone says something you don't like you aren't allowed to silence them because that violates their rights, but you are allowed to use your own rights to speak out against them and what they've been saying.

Crimes should be dealt with by our legal systems, but there are plenty of other ways to deal with things that simply offend us.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#687

Post by anigbrowl »

weberer wrote: post #108
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…

And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. These people who want to revoke DDoS protection for groups they don't like are essentially promoting terrorism. Why else would they fight so hard to remove DDoS protection, if not because they simply want those attacks to succeed?

You seem to be treating all political conflict as terrorism. Couldn't you say the same about people who organize on Kiwifarms and flood social media with specious allegations of bad character or nefarious actions? For that matter, the site has been heavily associated with doxxing and swatting.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#688

Post by f38zf5vdt »

schleck8 wrote: post #566
tedivm wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare has always hidden behind this stance as a way to justify doing awful things. When I worked at Malwarebytes we had regular issues with malware being hosted on Cloudflare. Now I don't mean like "hey download this file so you can learn"- that kind of thing we fully supported. I mean that these files were being explicitly used in drive by exploit attacks- if a user with a vulnerable browser went to the wrong w…

This entire 'freedom of speech' absolutism bullshit is so incoherent. They host and protect a website only dedicated to muzzling people the userbase disagrees with...

Ding ding ding. There is never sanity in splitting (black and white thinking) and it's characteristic of mental disorder in individuals.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#689

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

abigail95 wrote: post #599
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…

anyone caring about who swung first is trying to create an unresolvable problem or a forever war. this is not a solution for untangling disagreement. i've not seen any conflict solved by doing this

That's great that you think that, but there's this group of jerks that keeps swinging first.

At some point you have to start addressing the people who are actively trying to make others' lives worse through harassment, discrimination, and violence.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#690

Post by joshuamorton »

fjordelectro wrote: post #594
phillipcarter wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropping nazis from your service generally doesn't weaken the case for your service. For example, when Cloudflare did this in the past, it didn't harm their business.

> Dropping nazis from your service generally doesn't weaken the case for your service From the article: "In 2017, we terminated the neo-Nazi troll site The Daily Stormer. And in 2019, we terminated the conspiracy theory forum 8chan. In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights organization…

Much as cloudflare is choosing to ignore victims of harassment, cloudflare could simply choose to ignore the authoritarian regimes. It is not required to follow a particular definition of "fairness".
Post reply on HN