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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#881

Post by briHass »

mjr00 wrote: post #528
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.)

Agreed. IMO, people encouraging Cloudflare and other corporations to take political stances are very short-sighted. With the amount of Saudi Arabian and Chinese investment and influence continuing to grow in major corporations, you have to imagine that large tech corporations being aligned with west-coast US Democrat politics isn't going to last forever. As the article says, "... [not providing services based on mora…

Very similar to the short-sightedness of encouraging and celebrating creative circumventions of typical government checks and balances (Executive orders and judicial rulings used instead of legislature, etc.), only to be shocked and appalled when the game is flipped back on them when the 'other team' gets the ball.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#882

Post by strangeattractr »

NoraCodes wrote: post #749
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…

Ah, I had the timeline wrong, thanks for the correction. Still shitty in context, given how many laws KF violates, but more consistent for sure.

Which ones does it violate specifically?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#883

Post by Georgelemental »

ladyattis wrote: post #583
Georgelemental wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem isn't that certain customers, in my personal biased subjective opinion that is subject to no oversight whatsoever, are bad people who advocate doing bad things. The real problem is that certain customers, in my personal biased subjective opinion that is subject to no oversight whatsoever, are bad people who advocate doing bad things."

Things being subjective doesn't mean they're not true. What you mean to say is my arbitrary or biased view, which also doesn't invalidate their truthfulness. The fact that folks like you think subjectivity means arbitrary or biased or that it has no truth or factual value is disturbing and your position is also a deflection. In the United States, you can be sued at any time by other private parties. The fact that Jos…

I definitely think some things are objectively good or bad, I just don't think me or you or any individual is qualified to adjudicate that for all of society. That's what the law is for.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#884

Post by systemvoltage »

pjc50 wrote: post #261
systemvoltage wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen…

> - No tolerance to anything but work. If you sexually harrass someone, instantly fired. > - No woke HR training (no one watches it, yet no one has the courage to say anything about it) Given that a chunk of the HR training is about reminding people not to sexually harass, I'm not sure how you can achieve both of those? Especially when you don't have an HR department. Who's investigating the allegations? In practice…

I think we can poke holes at this but the point was in the exercise of thinking that if we were to start from scratch or rewind history, surely we can do better than what we have today. Today's corporations are not what I imagined progress should look like.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#885

Post by krainboltgreene »

015a wrote: post #763
somesortofthing wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation This is kind of a ridiculous comparison. A real-world landlord is a private individual extracting rent from their tenants while a real-world fire department is a publicly funded institution with a duty to protect everyone. Cloudflare offers both its hosting and DDOS services as a private company. They aren't morally obligated to provide any…

But that's the point! CF sees this aspect of the policy as acting like a public utility. Is that so wrong? Isn't that better than the alternative? Maybe, if we lived in a world where the government provided CDNs and DDoS mitigation and DNS zone file hosting and resolution and such, then its a reasonable argument to say: We have an entity beholden to Higher Laws which we can hold responsible, and marginalized voices h…

> But that's the point! CF sees this aspect of the policy as acting like a public utility.

Cool, but they're not.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#886

Post by krainboltgreene »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #628

Chloe Sagal seems to have had mental health issues - if not Kiwifarms then it would have been something else that trigged her suicide. It really baffles me when people are targeted by trolls - trolls have been around since the days of Fidonet and BBS - without strict moderation it is a wild west. Also the solution seems kind of obvious to me - just disconnect yourself - delete social media , curate your feeds and sto…

> Chloe Sagal seems to have had mental health issues - if not Kiwifarms then it would have been something else that trigged her suicide.

That's a super fucked thing for you to armchair doctor.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#887

Post by LionTamer »

HereIGoAgain wrote: post #851

I'm going to keep this simple. The ToS nonsense and other things are distractions. The entire argument for "dropping" is pretty much as disingenuous as it gets. They aren't just essentially arguing but LITERALLY arguing that CF should drop a legal site because they don't like that site and CF's services keep the site from being ILLEGALLY DDOS'd off of the internet entirely. That IS the other side of this debate! "Sto…

Why do you think the law determines what is morally right?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#888

Post by LionTamer »

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?

Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to equivocate terrorism, which actively targets/kills innocent civilians, with DDOS attacks against services which are responsible for moral atrocities? Could it be compared to vigilante justice? Perhaps. But comparing it to terrorism is unfair, to put it mildly.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#889

Post by vorpalhex »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #837
vorpalhex wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you ok with prohibiting the spread of Islam? Islam is incompatible with tolerance. Women's rights, depictions of Muhammed, etc. If we accept the paradox of tolerance you must either be anti-Islam or the paradox is broken. The fix is not new and is older than the paradox of tolerance: your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to write and speak what you will - I have a right to not listen. I do not have a…

you’re implying the spread of islam is the spread of activists who incite action toward its worst parts, the same goes for christianity of course: I’m ok with prohibiting (and socially over state violence…) speech that incites active participation in applying its worst parts which oppress. btw it’s stinky to use islam as your example and in an american context when it’s as obviously applicable to everything else and…

Women can't drive or have attorneys in Islamic nations and you think my use of them in an example is stinky? You want to argue about abortion rights when women literally can't leave their homes without a male guardian and hiding their face?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#890

Post by nullifidian »

systemvoltage wrote: post #244
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…

> I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen…

Bunch of this is a legal impossibility. Disparate impact jurisprudence prohibits competence based hiring. "No HR departments" increases your legal liability risks -- a company ought to have one to at least cover their asses by saying that "we followed precedents' prescribed procedures, but alas". "No woke HR training" is the same - it's literally a legal obligation, without which your liability increases by orders of magnitude.
Post reply on HN