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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#771

Post by 015a »

creeble wrote: post #214

>We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Unless, of course, you are an _enabler_ of such attacks. This is where CF's hypocrisy shines through. instant-stresser.com str3ssed.co freestresser.co metastresser.com (dozens more) These are all sites hosted with CF DNS, who provide services that are literally the opposite of free speech -- they are in the business of _suppressing…

Hosting a DNS zone file is not tantamount to enabling attacks. Its like saying Google enabled murder because Maps provided the directions for a murderer to get to the victim's house.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#772

Post by yarrel »

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…

We've already established that they are perfectly capable of ignoring people.

The only people they listen to or care about are domestic nazis. Those nasty regimes should just register accounts on KiwiFarms and then CloudFlare will bend over forwards to help them.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#773

Post by [deleted] »

patmcc wrote: post #397
sealeck wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. They're attacking KiwiFarms for their agenda of trying to drive people to commit suicide.

True. Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere. Someone walks up to it and sets it on fire. Should the local fire department put it out? Assume it's not going to spread to other buildings/etc.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#775

Post by berjin »

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #210

I find the article hopeful for the future of free speech on the internet. Even though the ability to host content on the net is one thing and lacking access to most platforms (where the users actually are) like youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok is another. The most important thing nowadays is access to the siloed user bases for people who try to express dissident opinions, not the access to the net as whole, even…

> Why does the company have "values"?

Look into ESG scores and Black Rock.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#776

Post by throwrqX »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #630
throwrqX wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there for the law enforcement apparatus not protecting transgender people in this particular case? Have their been similar cases for cisgender people where the law enforcement apparatus has cared more? I am not sure saying we need mob action to stop other mob action is a good long term solution.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/23/21295432/police-bla... https://incite-national.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TOOLK... etc

Key words in my post were in this particular case. Neither links talk about any similar cases regarding cisgender people and harassment either.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#777

Post by Covzire »

gadgetoid wrote: post #769

I may be missing a trick here, but what - exactly - gives Cloudflare - a company that provides web services - the moral authority to flatly claim: "that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities." ... and use that as a defense for inaction? It's like saying "Oh, well I can't give the poor money, they might spend it on dr…

What gives you or anyone else the moral authority to censor legal speech? I know doing so is a common fad in California/SV but it's doing tremendous harm to society already.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#778

Post by unethical_ban »

tambourine_man wrote: post #464
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…

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

The right to speech is strong, at least in the United States, at least for now.

Seeing how vital the Internet is for participation in society, it is my opinion that the baseline for "duty to serve" is that everyone has the right to a modicum of hosting and the ability to have their site accessible. That means a FQDN, SSL certificate, and network connectivity.

Should it be a legal requirement? I'm not yet convinced. But I don't think CF is wrong to host orgs they morally oppose.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#779

Post by throwrqX »

chc wrote: post #532
throwrqX wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there for the law enforcement apparatus not protecting transgender people in this particular case? Have their been similar cases for cisgender people where the law enforcement apparatus has cared more? I am not sure saying we need mob action to stop other mob action is a good long term solution.

I can't think of any instances of people being persecuted for being cisgender. But I suppose you can draw a reasonable comparison to The Pirate Bay, which has received much more attention from law enforcement for cutting into record labels' profits than Kiwi Farms has for terrorizing queer people.

Things involving industry and large sums of money have always gotten police attention easier. What is in question here is regarding discrimination against transgender individuals compared to cisgender ones with regards to harassment.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#780

Post by schleck8 »

yarrel wrote: post #765
schleck8 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy is obviously manipulative. A DDoS is not going to kill anyone unlike a fire (or swatting evidently).

Kiwi Farms recently DDoSed a suicide prevention hotline. So you are factually wrong.

You can't DDoS a phone number can you? Maybe their website but google snippets should cache the number
Post reply on HN