Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blocking Kiwifarms

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#511

Post by john-radio »

afavour wrote: post #479
dmw_ng wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching company employees consistently pop up on critical threads (not fingering CF here, many including at least Stripe come to mind as frequently occurring too) feels a lot like gaming the forum. Vetted messages like this from a recognizable source will often end up pinned to the top of the thread, but I don't really think they overly contribute to the conversation in most cases, and I find myself wishing there wa…

I have to disagree with this. These folks are best positioned to give us actual information . 90% of the rest is just opining.

I don't have any huge problem with eastdakota's comment here, and I think I agree with Cloudflare's action (I listened to a Behind the Bastards podcast recently that covered an individual who was bullied until they committed suicide by kiwifarms, so I understand the stakes) but - there is nothing in their comment that presents "actual information"; it does not present any facts; it just presents the perspective that their legal team would like all of us to take on their action. dmw_ng's criticism is entirely fair.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#512

Post by xupybd »

joecool1029 wrote: post #501
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

>Our decision today Your decision today. You took ownership before for the arbitrary decisions to remove DS and 8Chan, take ownership now and do not try to backpedal. You are Cloudflare's leader. >That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat. You failed to take ownership of this issue…

It's not an infrastructures job to enforce morality outside of the law.

That is a dangerous place to get to. Due process has incredible value. It allows us to live free lives while also punishing and preventing crimes.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#513

Post by LessimiGoats »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #257
Icathian wrote: post #40

There were no good choices for Cloudflare here, and everyone across the internet who jams their fingers in their ears and shouts their position repeatedly is just contributing to the problem. Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of free speech in our society. They are forced into that position by woefully inadequate governance by legal authorities operating multiple decades behind the current lands…

This was not a free speech issue and I suspect that some of the attempts to reframe it that way are deliberately muddying the waters. The issue at hand is that Cloudflare was providing material support to terrorists. The site at the center of all this wasn't merely being critical of a group of people, it was being used to gather and disseminate personal information and coordinate acts of terrorism. Cloudflare meanwhi…

No post body was provided.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#514

Post by yomkippur »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #486

I think a lot of people in the comments don't understand what Kiwifarms is. I say this as someone who occasionally browses there and gets some (admittedly sick) enjoyment from it: the main draw of the website is a place for people to get together and bully mentally ill "weirdos". It's not just about people posting offensive shit in their own little corner of the internet - what happens there spreads out, by design, i…

No post body was provided.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#515

Post by enraged_camel »

coffeeblack wrote: post #371
tombert wrote: post #312

Good. I'm sorry, I'm generally Mr. "Raw raw free speech", but let's not kid ourselves; by all accounts KiwiFarms is (and always has been) a cesspool of horrible people. It's not like 4chan or something, where it might have started with reasonable intentions and just became horrible; KiwiFarms was started for the specific purpose of bullying Chris-Chan, hence why it was initially called Cwcki Farms. KiwiFarms has been…

Shouldn’t the question be why is “SWATing” even possible?

I think that should be a question, but it shouldn't be the question.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#516

Post by Grue3 »

paulmd wrote: post #229
ffwszgf wrote: post #53

Cloudflare can do whatever it wants but I wish they were honest about it. The claim that there has been some “dangerous escalation” in the past 2 weeks is nonsense. If anything the owner has been monitoring the thread more proactively and making sure people follow the law. This is included not allowing the creation of new accounts and reminding everyone that their data will be turned over to the authorities should it…

Quoted post unavailable.

There is at least one CF customer who was doxxed by Kiwifarms after expressing displeasure with Cloudflare's initial decision. CF CEO (eastdakota) blocked this customer when he complained about it [1] So much for free speech + great customer service!

[1] https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1565629001862873088

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#517

Post by allovy »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

No post body was provided.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#518

Post by convery »

htk wrote: post #471

Let me see if I get this right, they were not hosting KF, they are blocking them via other services like DNS etc?

They provided DDoS protection, and thus replaced what content was served through that. KF dot ru is still up because that uses DDoS-Guard.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#519

Post by xupybd »

notatoad wrote: post #451
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

>rather than free speech i encourage anybody who is calls themselves a "free speech advocate" to consider what kiwifarms has been doing to "free speech". their intimidation campaigns have been doing a lot more to harm the cause of free speech than this decision by cloudflare is. if you really believe in free speech, you understand that trans people deserve free speech too, and kiwifarms harrasment campaigns have been…

Free speech is about giving people the freedom to say things I find disgusting. It's about giving each individual the choice to listen to what ever influence they wish. It takes the the power of ideas and elevates them above physical force.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#520

Post by pixl97 »

coffeeblack wrote: post #371
tombert wrote: post #312

Good. I'm sorry, I'm generally Mr. "Raw raw free speech", but let's not kid ourselves; by all accounts KiwiFarms is (and always has been) a cesspool of horrible people. It's not like 4chan or something, where it might have started with reasonable intentions and just became horrible; KiwiFarms was started for the specific purpose of bullying Chris-Chan, hence why it was initially called Cwcki Farms. KiwiFarms has been…

Shouldn’t the question be why is “SWATing” even possible?

Because people in the US love taking other people hostage with firearms, in particular in domestic abuse scenarios.

It is a very problematic catch-22 situation that is not helped by cops playing GI-Joe with combat gear.

Post reply on HN