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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#871

Post by _chendo_ »

joecool1029 wrote: post #666
NoraCodes wrote: post #373

It's very telling that this post does not mention Cloudflare dropping switter, a social media site by and for sex workers which was, at the time, not violating any laws. They regret dropping self-described Nazis but not legal sex work? Cloudflare has an ideological agenda which they are masking behind supposed neutrality.

> It's very telling that this post does not mention Cloudflare dropping switter, a social media site by and for sex workers which was, at the time, not violating any laws. Not true, it was dropped in response to SESTA being signed into law less than a week earlier which greatly expanded their legal liability. Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_... Reporting: https://www.theverge.com/2018…

Cloudflare still fronts many sites that are most definitely violating SESTA, but presumably Cloudflare chooses to look the other way when they're taking money, or the CEO doesn't have a problem with the site.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#872

Post by fomine3 »

ladyattis wrote: post #381

The problem isn't that certain customers are bigots, but that they actively seek to allow harm to be done by their own end users like Kiwi Farms. The fact they have an exhaustive wikipedia for one person (Chris Chan) should have been the "nope" moment for them. Like if I was a host or a provider of a service and Josh Moon came to me with his site I'd just turn him away because he's like nuclear waste dangerous. It's…

It's your moral.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#873

Post by joecool1029 »

_chendo_ wrote: post #871
joecool1029 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very telling that this post does not mention Cloudflare dropping switter, a social media site by and for sex workers which was, at the time, not violating any laws. Not true, it was dropped in response to SESTA being signed into law less than a week earlier which greatly expanded their legal liability. Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_... Reporting: https://www.theverge.com/2018…

Cloudflare still fronts many sites that are most definitely violating SESTA, but presumably Cloudflare chooses to look the other way when they're taking money, or the CEO doesn't have a problem with the site.

Realistically they either don't know about what those sites do or their legal department updated their advice after reviewing SESTA and applicable case law.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#874

Post by _chendo_ »

dastbe wrote: post #31
namelessoracle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually read their article, it seems they are saying that 8chan WASNT defensible to them and was a mistake for them to do so.

then why don’t they publicly invite back 8chan and the daily stormer, possibly for a discount/free? similarly, are they lobbying to get FOSTA revised so they can bring back Switter? their opinion is that it is (almost always?) ethically wrong for them to withhold security products. for the two websites i mentioned, nobody is stopping them from providing services. for a third, they could lobby to fix fosta and/or not…

Cloudflare claimed they were going to fight FOSTA but I've seen absolutely nothing done about it.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#875

Post by XorNot »

Chris2048 wrote: post #839
XorNot wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a HackerNews user, goes by the handle Chris2048. And I just don't know what his problem is you know? Back in my day we had a solution for those types of people. If he wasn't hiding behind the internet I bet he wouldn't be so tough. Just imagine if we knew who he was and he couldn't hide like that, wouldn't that be great? I recommend you all go look up his posts. That's Chris2048 on HackerNews, have a really g…

The implication of ST is you aren't targeting a specific individual, so this analogy falls short there - "Chris2048 on HackerNews" is definitely targeted. People rail against HN and its "tech bros" all the time.

The definition is widely accepted now to include targeting either a group, or an individual[1]. The "stochastic" component is that no individual or group is being specifically directed by command to carry out the attack, but the speaker is knowingly or negligently adding rhetoric to incite someone to do so.

But you're also conflating terms: criticism is not an incitement to violence. An incitement to violence is specific: "I think it would be great if some implied violence happened to that group I don't like".

It's specifically not considered ST to say something like "I hope some legal consequences happen to this person who I think is committing crimes" because amongst other things, that's a call to the application of the justice system, not terrorism.

It's also worth noting that other incitements, like encouraging someone to commit suicide has been found to be a punishable crime - and this is the sort of action Kiwi Farms specializes in and openly supports against their targets.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_te...

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#876

Post by philistine »

kmeisthax wrote: post #740
hammyhavoc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with so many SaaS, CloudFlare has perhaps become too many digital eggs in one digital basket, so inevitably it will result in disappointment and bad decisions ala Twitter, GoDaddy etc.

The problem is that all those bad decisions inevitably spark from these platform companies not wanting to enforce their own AUP . We point out a particular bad actor in violation of their own policies, and they do nothing. We complain loudly about it in the news, and they vaguely commit to "fighting" the problems that were already against their AUP ... but not any specific named bad actors. Automated systems are chuc…

The fact that Clouflare has decided it is in the better interest of the Internet that one website gets to break their AUP because they've become a cause célébre is so amateurish. Business to business relationships don't work that way. You break the contract, you're out. That's what's in the interest of the Internet. Upholding business contracts.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#877

Post by DoctorOW »

stormbrew wrote: post #844
DoctorOW wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in my perfect world (...) cf isn't even in a position to arbitrate speech This is literally the only thing I'm advocating for. I'm a trans woman that openly speaks about my and others' experiences. Trust me when I say, codified systems for reporting abuse are themselves the target of the same abuse. I've gotten the "Sorry, we're leaving this up" from reporting anti trans content on Facebook. I've had comments sayin…

> Trust me Trust me when I say I'm aware and that I have very specific reasons to feel the way I do. But the thing is that cf absolutely is profiting off this. They provide this service to make themselves indispensable, to make themselves an attractive product for people to use. By holding the line here, they will drum up plenty of business that's really happy about their stance, even if it only toes the line kf cros…

Just a hunch but if you want a less public place to discuss this I have contact info on my profile.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#878

Post by ocdtrekkie »

killyourcar wrote: post #867
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you missed the core points of this post. - Precedent from decisions on The Daily Stormer and 8chan was used to pressure Cloudflare to deplatform human rights organizations by authoritarian governments. Refusing to deplatform isn't about protecting Kiwifarms, but protecting other groups in a global environment where they face legal and social pressure on differing and conflicting views. A hands-off policy…

So wait, they don't get paid, meaning they are happy to provide protection to these sites at their expense? You see how that's worse, right?

I don't. My personal position is that corporations are awful at moral judgments, and I'd vastly prefer infrastructure companies not decide who can and can't be on the Internet. I think it's imperative we solve this legally by pursuing a proper takedown of Kiwifarms, not by trying to encourage DDoSes to deal with it and then getting upset a company which prevents DDoS attacks prevented DDoS attacks.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#880

Post by philistine »

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?

History has shown that reprehensible acts can be done for the greater good. Getting Kiwi Farms off the Internet at all cost might be good, digital terrorism be damned.
Post reply on HN