DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler • Hacker News Board

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#251

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

This reminds me of the "selective enforcement" that is so often brought up when talking about racism in the USA.

In this case it's quite interesting, because here we have a Russian company facing interference over a political issue of the USA, who, in the process of creating the internet, put themselves in a bit of a privileged position in regards to IP addresses. Aren't there still a bunch of Class-A networks in use over there?

So while it's true that DDoS-Guard seems to be getting the consequences of their actions, it still makes me wonder if wouldn't have gotten away with it, had they been an American company with the right political alignment, even if someone would have pointed out their fraudulent behaviour.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#252

Post by beerandt » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

D13Fd wrote: post #70

StavrosK wrote: post #12

These goings-on make me very aware of the fact that I'm still not settled on the matter of free speech. I used to be very pro-free-speech, but on the other hand, I'm anti-fascism, and I don't know what's worse: Giving fascists a platform to spew hate, or set a precedent for potentially limiting my own speech down the line? It's nowhere near clear-cut, and I'd like to hear some opinions on this.

Free speech means that the government cannot interfere with your speech (with certain exceptions). It's an essential right to any free democracy. But it absolutely does not mean that other people have to like you, listen to you, sell goods to you, or allow you to use their platform.

It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement.

Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn't a "government" action, and due process doesn't apply to individuals.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#253

Post by vaduz » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

afiori wrote: post #239

goatinaboat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

simply reclaiming the fraudulently assigned IPs. I hope the island of Tuvalu reclaims all those .tv domains then, not to mention .io.

Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought

> Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought

Whilst true, it depends on a circular argument that the domain name registrant has a significant business presence in Tuvalu by virtue of paying for the domain, thus being entitled to a regional registration in the country in the first place (you could substitute Tuvalu by Tokelau and a bunch of others which make selling the domain to non-local entities, see it nicely visualized here [0]).

It used to really raise some hackles at ICANN and InterNic back in the day, but nowadays, after the gTLD floodgates have been opened - no one really cares anymore about the old regional rules.

[0] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/u...

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#254

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #119

hluska wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?

Probably, yeah. This sort of fraud is pretty common. Sometimes it's caught when the IP space is used to send spam or host obviously illegal content (spam landing pages, botnet C&C, CP, drugs, etc), sometimes it's caught in other ways, like when a shady DDoS protection outfit uses it to host a high-profile web site.

> a shady DDoS protection outfit

Shady because they're Russians? Or shady because they're using a shell-company to achieve their goals?

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#255

Post by aww_dang » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:31 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #247

aww_dang wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, re…

> Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? Sitting in New York, nutters who came within yards of hanging the Vice President, Speaker of the House and potentially several Senators are a far more clear and present danger than mullahs in the Middle East.

Bah, there's so much partisan hyperbole that I have a hard time believing that Pence or Pelosi were in danger of being lynched. This fits perfectly within the narrative I've described above. Take the most extreme rhetoric and generalize it to mean an entire population of people you disagree with.

Furthermore, if we accept the narrative of the WoT and that there was a legitimate threat to politicians, there's still a wide swath of difference between the two. ISIS is a real threat endangering, killing, maiming and torturing an entire region. They carried out indiscriminate attacks on civilians across the world. A few nutters threatening to lynch some politicians isn't that.

Conflating the two ideas is an example of how toxic rhetoric has become. Yeah, you can turn on MSNBC, CNN or even the BBC right now for validation of those narratives. You could also turn to those same media outlets for justification for the war in Iraq or crackdowns on civil liberties during that same period. The new war on domestic terrorism (read dissent from establishment politics) is similarly worth a critical look. Especially if grandmas with thermoses are to be lumped in with dangerous extremists.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#256

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:31 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #244

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? It's a suggested action.

> If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? Because the Insurrection Act of 1807 [1] says it is. Less bluntly, the point of democracy is to give people peaceful means by which to affect their government. Storming the Capitol is not a peaceful mean. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

The problem is that, in their heads, they were denied those peaceful means, so they think they're justified in resorting to violence as a last resort.

Their premise might be completely ridiculous, but the logic that follows is sound.

Then again, that line of thinking means the blame shifts from those doing the assaulting to those fabricating the accusations that justify it, which happens to be mostly users of precisely those platforms that got deleted.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#257

Post by aww_dang » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #229

aww_dang wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, re…

It’s called reductio ad absurdum. Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say. If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#258

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:36 AM UTC

squibbles wrote: post #10

> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups. While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel a…

> Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse [...]?

I'd say yes, but not by shifting the whole movement away from extremism, but by slowly siphoning individuals out of those groups until only a small minority of crazy extremists is left.

The best counter to a massive disinformation campaign is information on the same massive scale. Sadly, it often seems easier to just silence lies instead of charging straight at it.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#259

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:51 AM UTC

marmada wrote: post #114

To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler has equivalencies - AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler - The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit

> To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban?

That completely depends.

1. If the stated goal of the platform is onboarding for terrorist organizations, then that's a completely different situation.

2. If the platform is open, but known to be used as a main recruiting platform for such an organization, then I also don't think it should be shut down.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#260

Post by aneutron » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:08 AM UTC

Number157 wrote: post #240

aneutron wrote: post #227

I don't get it. Do people not read the article first ? There's no "deplatforming" happening here. DDoS-Guard is using IPs from Belize (a country in latin america) using a shell company there. That's against the contactual obligations. So the Latin America IP association (lacnic) is simply reclaiming the fraudulently assigned IPs. Some of these IPs were used by Parler. Please read the article first ....

Well the issue with IP addressed is used to de-platform them. Lots of rules are broken all the time and no one cares. Suddenly when people want to get rid of someone, rules are selectively enforced.

Except that's not the case here. It's not a "Parler" thing. It's a DDos-Guard. Parler happened to use one of the IPs ALLOCATED for them by DDos-Guard. Also, according to the article, DDos-Guard already gave them another IP.

So no, it's not a Parler thing.