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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#551

Post by stepupmakeup »

nostrebored wrote: post #532
stepupmakeup wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if my understanding is wrong, but if someone were to host a message board or similar site with UGC and have it backed by Cloudflare, and a troll makes posts and threads threatening disasters on multiple occasions even though the site's administration removes them with haste, would Cloudflare also deny service to them? Basically take the current situation but instead of Kiwi Farms, replace it with "Grandma'…

This is exactly the determination. The post being spread around as evidence of harm was by a user with four posts, all within the last week, all on this thread, despite being a member for two years. If I were trying to get a website deplatformed at least the approach is clear and easy.

By "this thread", do you mean HN, or Kiwi Farms?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#552

Post by allovx »

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

#553

Post by at_a_remove »

This is your daily reminder that the last time Cloudfare did this, they left up ISIS murdersites, featuring videos of people being murdered by ISIS (gunshots to the face, decaptitation via detcord, setting people on fire in a cage).

The only conclusion one can come to is that it was a PR move as they caved under pressure.

Now, ask yourself if this is a similar situation.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#554

Post by wikitopian »

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…

In the case of the Daily Stormer, it was free speech and you very clearly and directly made the incorrect call.

I'm a big fan of your thoughtful speeches while you grapple with these sticky situations. But why not just invest some pocket change in helping solve TOR's name resolution problem so that removal from the clearnet isn't the death sentence it currently is?

There's a simple and obvious solution to this which doesn't interfere with your principles or your business model: a crypto-driven system for assigning human readable addresses to onion addresses. With that in place and included in the tor browser and in a simple browser plugin for other browsers, you can focus on fighting DDOS attacks on clearnet sites instead of being the reluctant referee of the world's communication.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#556

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Tao3300 wrote: post #529
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 If one patron starts beating another to a pulp, the bartender breaking up the fight does not signify a failure of the rule of law or law enforcement. You stepped in to help. It would be nice if you were given official air cover to do so. But I and most Americans prefer a system where the gover…

The bartender example is so wrong that it has wrapped around into rightness. What really happens is that the bartender signals the cooler to throw out said patrons to settle it some place where it isn't their liability. It goes to the street, who knows where and what they'll do to each other. And that's pretty much what cloudflare is doing here, saying "you can't do this in here" and now we get to see where the chips…

> What really happens is that the bartender signals the cooler to throw out said patrons to settle it some place where it isn't their liability. It goes to the street, who knows where and what they'll do to each other

This is more accurate, thank you. Either way, not a failure of law enforcement. (It is if the bartender calls the cops, they do nothing, and the victim turns up the next day in a hand basket.)

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#557

Post by password4321 »

Anyone willing to stick their neck out with a HN-undeletable prediction of who'll be the target of the next pressure campaign? (which of course wasn't the reason for blocking...)

The rumblings I'm detecting now seem to be related to misinformation.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#558

Post by Cyberdog »

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 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 the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat.

This is the logic of vigilantes. I'm not saying what you have done is on the same level as vigilante murder or anything, but don't try to justify it as something high-and-mighty. You've once again terminated a customer on a whim. And that's your right, but stop trying to make this out to be anything more than that.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#559

Post by anigbrowl »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #466
loteck wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out there's no such thing as neutrality. Connecting content to the world is a choice your team approves or declines. You can complain about scalability of that decision all you want. Cloudflare is not neutral, and will never be. You're an active participant and you have to deal with your responsibility.

Is the phone company responsible for connecting content? How about your internet service provider? At what level does someone become responsible? This is a question for the law, not for the mob. The internet, thanks to a completely fucked up legal regime (section 230), is currently very gray. Facebook and Twitter, which are commonly used to facilitate large-scale violent riots and play host to far more doxxing and cy…

Well, the phone company can't legally listen in on your private conversations.

In contrast, nothing prevents Cloudflare from looking at a company's public-facing website (ie as an unprivileged visitor just going to the domain) and deciding whether or not one wants to do business with that company.

Post reply on HN