Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

> I see more that as a consequence of a failure of the US to legislate hate speech.

What’s considered “hate speech” is completely arbitrary and liable to change depending on who is in power. There’s untold “hate speech” against Christians, straight white males, wealthy people etc - where does it stop and why is criticizing one group of people “hate speech” and another not?

> So, the claim is that Cloudflare is acting like the window glass shop that drums up business by running around smashing windows at night? That's quite the claim.

That is not my claim; they don't operate any DDoS-for-hire sites. My claim is that their "free speech, we won't shut them down" claims are utter hypocrisy when they do nothing to shut down their support for DDoS-for-hire sites, the ultimate (on the internet, anyway) anti-free speech perpetrators.

What is the distinction you are drawing between a death from a swatting and pulling the trigger yourself?

Is this some "I didn't kill you, I just tied you up and left you on the tracks at 11:55 for the noon train" distinction?

And just because the attacks aren't explicitly coordinated on the site doesn't mean there's not culpability there... if an 8chan user is radicalized by 8chan and attacks a target suggested by 8chan, that doesn't mean 8chan isn't responsible just because the user didn't explicitly type "yes I am going to attack on Febtober 7th at 2pm".

That's sort of the problem with the whole "stochastic terrorism" thing... there's a transparently thin veneer of deniability for everyone involved, even the leaders. We obviously don't tolerate those excuses when dealing with jihad, you're going to get sanctioned or even bombed even if you're "just their spiritual leader and not actually involved with planning.

There's no reason to with 8chan or KF either.

Which is the most frustrating thing about this document, because CloudFlare is ostensibly explaining why their AUP for hosting services is different from their AUP for security services; but instead of talking about the points of their AUP, they talk about how they don't want to terminate security services just because they feel the content is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible".

They are adopting the same strawman that critics of "cancel culture" believe exists: they are answering the question of "Why don't you cancel security services to people whose content is 'immoral or disgusting' or 'reprehensible'?"

But that's not the relevant question. One presumes Kiwi Farms would violate CloudFlare's Hosting AUP not because they're "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible" either (because those aren't stated violations of the hosting AUP) but because it "Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public."

So the question they should be answering, for each of the AUP violations they prohibit in their Hosting AUP, is why they allow these activities for services protected by their security services:

* Do you, or why do you allow security service subscribers to distribute material that violates intellectual property rights?

* Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to publish defamatory content?

* Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute malware and control botnets?

And if it turns out you don't allow them to do that, then why would you make a special exception for the last plank of your hosting AUP:

* Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute content that is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public?

Those are the activities in question, not whether something is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". So why the misdirection? Why not answer why you think it's important to provide security services specifically to people that incites harassment to people?

In my opinion, it's because they are overcorrecting and actually favoring groups like Kiwi Farms exactly because they're repugnant and reprehensible, and giving them a special bye that they wouldn't to, say, a revenge porn site. And that's participating and aiding in the targeting of Kiwi Farms' victims.

They are not a utility, owned by the public, volunteer-led, a nonprofit, or are anywhere close in relation to the wonderful services of a fire department.

This is a company that is harboring and upholding the very act of terrorism and violence being sickened on a population.

They are upholding fascist hatred, and so are you if you aren't seeing that.