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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#721

Post by FullyFunctional »

colechristensen wrote: post #672
amrocha wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Call the cops, file restraining orders, and get a good therapist. Assholes and trolls are still going to exist regardless of what any platform does. You can’t have what you want by trying to pressure cloudflare, it won’t make a positive difference. Do something real instead of advocating for something toothless and symbolic.

How exactly do you file a restraining order against an unknown group of unnamed people? It seems like a very privileged victim-blaming POV.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#722

Post by philippejara »

jackson1442 wrote: post #294
judge2020 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point for not respecting verdicts is: > Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of…

How can we leave something for the courts to decide while at the same time dismissing all courts other than the US? Especially when you consider neither the hosting provider of the site in question, nor the target of this wave of harassment are from the US.

At that point why bother with cloudflare? if you have a credible legal case to take down the hosting of the website you make a legal case in the place where it is being hosted and use that to get it down. I can't really see any reason for a court of law to force cloudflare to not service someone given that the obvious implications that the one asking for that to happen wants to commit a felony, or at the very least make the target susceptible to one, assuming cloudflare isn't hosting anything of course.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#723

Post by throw149102 »

yanderekko wrote: post #109
pjc50 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stochastic terrorism involves actual murder. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/buffalo-shooter-stocha...

Yes, and one can argue that everyone who denigrates group X is guilty of stochastic terrorism when an attack on group X occurs.

A more charitable version of this argument would build in a series of degrees as to how likely those denigrations are to make stochastic terrorism occur. For example, vague insults directed at a group of people are less likely to cause terrorism than ones associated with a single person. Insults that come loaded with implicit threats (like doxxing) are much more likely to cause stochastic terrorism than those without. Insults and threats against groups who are marginalized in society are more likely to cause terrorism. Insults made in a space full of mentally deranged people are more likely to cause terrorism.

With all of this, it's clear that if you're going to argue that stochastic terrorism even exists, you should believe that it is happening at Kiwi Farms. Incredibly personal, incredibly specific (doxxing), directed at marginalized people, and in a space full of people that are already predisposed to acts of violence.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#724

Post by Banana699 »

amrocha wrote: post #657
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.)

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?

Yes you can, convince your friends to deactivate their social media accounts where\when they're harrassed or aggressively block those who harrass them. Teach them tips and tricks to bully back (bullying is really easy). Find them mental health professionals and services, and possibly help them financially with those services.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#725

Post by pseudalopex »

tomrod wrote: post #706
pseudalopex wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a platform of services like a government service is typically provisioned. It's a monopoly funded by taxes obligated to serve everyone? > While not a democratically elected government, they use governance all the same. This is meaningless.

I can see you're not interested in discussion at this time. No worries, we all have those days. I did not say it was a government service, I said a platform functions a lot like a government service, especially when multihoming is limited due to switching costs.

> I did not say it was a government service, I said a platform functions a lot like a government service, especially when multihoming is limited due to switching costs.

You said it was like a government service is typically provisioned. And the costs of switching governments dwarf the costs of switching online services.

> I can see you're not interested in discussion at this time. No worries, we all have those days.

The same to you.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#726

Post by dotnet00 »

dang wrote: post #105
RichardCNormos wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. Your comment here is a noticeable step in that direction, relative to the GP. We want comments to step in exactly the opposite direction. This is not a site for ideological battle, which destroys the curious conversation HN is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spiri…

This thread is going to be a nightmare to moderate with how riled up everyone is. Good luck!

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#727

Post by sophacles »

sealeck wrote: post #146
fjordelectro wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've decided they want to be seen as a utility. You undermine your DDOS protection business if you drop controversial customers. They are exact type of customer who need DDOS protection the most.

> They are exact type of customer who need DDOS protection the most. They (KiwiFarms, Daily Stormer) would be better not on the internet. > They've decided they want to be seen as a utility. This isn't how law works - just as you can't say "we don't have a banking license but we'd like to be seen as a bank and provide banking services" you can't say "we're not a utility but we'd like to be seen as one". Note that bei…

I think paypal would disagree.

And in other areas: uber, airbnb, various voip services have all said "we don't actually have the proper licenses for our industry but we want to fulfill the same role"

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#728

Post by naasking »

malfist wrote: post #719
naasking wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you deplatform a Nazi by murdering them, is it still murder?

Are you implying that if cloudflare kicked a nazi off their services, that would murder them?

No. Clearly you're having trouble understanding basic logic so I'll spell it out for you:

1. Terrorism is not a judgment of the target but of the action.

2. The OP classified DDoS as terrorism.

3. DDoSing Nazis is thus terrorism.

By parity of reasoning, I pointed out that murdering a Nazi is still murder, regardless of the fact that the target was a Nazi. The nature of the target is immaterial to the classification of the action taken against them.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#729

Post by ignoramous »

at_a_remove wrote: post #698
hammyhavoc wrote: post #3

If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.

Remember, while they took down 8chan, they left up ISIS sites hosting ISIS-made videos of ISIS members burning people alive , popping off their heads with detcord, and the like. 8chan bad , ISIS ... well, not as bad? I will never stop reminding people that the CEO said he woke up in a bad mood one day and took down protections for one group ... but left murdersites alone. Can't be undone. Remember that whenever they…

> I will never stop reminding people that the CEO said he woke up in a bad mood one day and took down protections for one group ... but left murdersites alone. Can't be undone.

Out of loop. What is this in reference to?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#730

Post by Banana699 »

phillipcarter wrote: post #625
vorpalhex wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a private company, they can choose how they serve users. Isn't this what gets said everytime Twitter bans someone? Cloudflare is allowed to offer services to people you don't like.

And we're allowed to pressure them to act more ethical.

Ok, but your pressuring is not working. We're just trying to save you from wasting your time.
Post reply on HN