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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#901

Post by sascha_sl »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #534
sascha_sl wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that still doesn't make Cloudflare the fire brigade. It is still their policy decision to value the freedom of speech of Kiwifarms more than the safety of those KF target, no matter how much they try to pretend they have an obligation to protect everyone that asks for it and are thus not at all partially responsible for enabling harassment - to the point of suicide in at least 3 cases. They don't have to protect…

> But that still doesn't make Cloudflare the fire brigade. Why not? That particular service seems a lot like a volunteer fire brigade.

Are the Proud Boys like a volunteer fire brigade because they provide "security services" too?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#903

Post by sfe22 »

tambourine_man wrote: post #787
sfe22 wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been waiting for someone to mention this board stuff. A question for you: If facebook opened up their board for votes by public, imposed mandatory taxes on Americans and had a police to control the population, would we still be living in a democracy?

The only way I can kind of envision what you’re saying is for Facebook to be nationalized. Is that what you’re referring to? If so, sure, it’s a democracy still.

The will make sure to nationalize themselves or whatever no worries, just making sure it is still democracy.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#904

Post by croniev »

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…

Separation of politics from economy is an impossibilty, and the company that you are describing is only turning a blind eye to its responsibilities to society. You want to make profit the only relevant variable, denying any moral or political factors? What you will end up with is a company that is blind to the effect it has on society and to the reasons of how and why it works. For example, say you have a lot of Nazi customers, for whatever reason (maybe you first openend in a nazi neighborhood and they like you). They say that they want you to stop selling immigrants, and following your profit maximation rules you are happy to accept, as immigrants are a minority here and would not give as much profit as the nazis. However, your opposition has to close shop because every nazi has now flocked to you and the immigrant customers are not enough to keep it running. You end up with extreme polarisation and a lack of freedom for a group of people. This example is super simplified and perhaps not satisfying, but in the complexity of the real world and of online businesses etc. there are so much more mechanisms that can lead to discrimination, especially if they are not reflected upon. This phenomenon, where complete rational focus on one variable is disastrous for other factors that are very important in different ways, is also known as the rationality of irrationality. Please read more about it here [1], you may find that your view of society is quite naive. I don't want to diss you, but I would not be surprised if you reckon its strictly the politics job to care about gender equality, antiracism, etc., and that you like yo blame incompetent politicians for the problems rather than rationalist business people who do not see the consequences of their actions. While profit profit profit may have kind of worked in the sixties, it is time to use our new gained knowledge about societal mechanisms and put them to good to fight more pressing problems than growing gdp.

[1]: https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/09/the-rationalit...

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#905

Post by raxxorraxor »

jasonshaev wrote: post #80
seneca wrote: post #43

It's interesting watching the responses roll in here. What CF is laying out here was essentially the standard viewpoint of western society until something like 10 years ago. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll protect your right to say it" is a basic tenant of liberalism. If you find that shocking, you should examine why that is.

"Protect your right to say it..." from _the government_. There has never been a reasonable expectation that private businesses are or should be required to allow all speech. Doing so prevents the business from exercising their own first amendment protections.

This is the law but everyone is free to adhere to the principle of free speech themselves. If you need to be compelled to do it, you simply don't share the idea of free speech, which is regrettable.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#906

Post by Chris2048 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #845
Chris2048 wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that while initially having more guns causes the probability of being raided to go up, with enough guns that starts to fall. The police/FBI raid you because you are a threat to them. Become enough of a threat, and they will think twice about raiding you. Of course you won't win against the military, but that becomes an issue of popular support - the BP didn't have enough political power at the time. I expec…

gun ownership itself doesn’t make an organization a threat to the police or fbi as is utterly evident. nor does the possession of guns itself cause organized criminalized activity to be treated with severe force, as is also utterly evident also bear in mind the military doesn’t operate with nearly as much ease on america’s own population, when you’re comparing pig threat to movements or peoples in the US. there’s als…

This is in the context of being a targeted organisation, such as the BP.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#907

Post by bell-cot »

eastdakota wrote: post #891
bell-cot wrote: post #485

There must be a lot of times when Cloudflare's leaders wish that they were a janitorial supply company. Or a roofing firm. Or a ball bearings manufacturer. Or anything where there was ~zero public expectation that they would monitor and be "held responsible" for the business models, behaviors, and morals of the millions of people and organizations using their products & services.

No, these are hard and important issues. I trust our team to think them through and would never want to outsource or shirk that responsibility. Having what you do matter is the highest job satisfaction. We may not always get it right, but I’d never not want to be in the arena.

Well, if you actually feel that way... Let me suggest reading about J.P. Morgan's heroic actions during the Panic of 1907 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907 ). Vs. John Astor IV's passive uselessness during the 1912 Sinking of the Titanic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Titanic ).

But please try to make sure that the situation around you & Cloudflare never gets bad enough that you're needed as heroes in any historic crisis or disaster.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#908

Post by Akronymus »

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.

What? A quick search on the farms didn't turn anything up about that. Only thing I can find is the farm being ddosd rather than the other way around.

And for that matter, a search through google and such didnt turn up anything either. And if its just "x says they did it" without ANY evidence, then how could I believe that?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#909

Post by Akronymus »

Borgz wrote: post #27
mardifoufs wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8chan had the whole mass shooter thing. Comparing the two websites is very hyperbolic.

8chan users radicalize each other and encourage each other to commit mass shootings. KiwiFarms users post the personal information of people and encourage each other to harass them to the point of suicide. I don't see how they aren't comparable.

> KiwiFarms users post the personal information of people and encourage each other to harass them to the point of suicide.

Both of those things are EXPLICITLY against the rules and are heavily enforced. They only take public information and are point and laugh, but don't touch.

Reprehensible for sure, but your portrayal isn't accurate.

Post reply on HN