Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#251

Post by afiori » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

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…

Caring about PR is in the interest of shareholders.

If companies had to always maximize short term profits there would be very few companies around.

wrt shareholders for public companies they have a duty not to defraud them[0]; for everything else they are another stakeholder between employees, the public, the company itself as an institution, and other.

[0] For example how Musk had Tesla overpay for the failing SolarCity to save face [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSUQhfYv3wc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYGgeRxVS_E

[3] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-eVf9RWeoWHFuSgmmpMlMlVf...

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#252

Post by DantesKite » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

sealeck wrote: post #75

superkuh wrote: post #21

I am amazed at how cloudflare has turned around and become a reputable, reliable company re: arbitrary breaches of contract based on the CEO's personal opinions. After he breached contract with the Daily Stormer because of "a bad mood" I was sure it'd just devolve into a no-holds barred censorship-fest. Instead he's managing to hold the line against all of the authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other…

It's not actually commendable to host content for white supremacists and transphobes. Free speech may be deserving of protection, but white supremacists using the internet to coordinate real-world activities (such as terrorist attacks) doesn't actually qualify as "free speech" deserving protection against "authoritarians and individuals wanting to rip each other down".

I don't believe that's a power a company like Cloudflare should hold, instead delineating it to the justice system to weed and parse out.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#253

Post by DoctorOW » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #113

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…

I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people, preferably before they inevitably bully their victims into suicide.

The whole point of my comment is that I don't think it is easy. It'd be great, but it certainly isn't easy.

If they get rid of Kiwi Farms, ultimately it's not going to fix the problem. They're going to find a new, harder to harass vendor for CDN. Cloudflare's detractors are going to find a new website to talk about.

If you're talking about all websites that do this kind of thing, I have my doubts about how this would look in practice. Take down websites that use hate speech? Work to debunk hateful myths would likely get caught in that. Suspend websites that get X number of reports? Congrats, you've given botnets a far more effective tool for DDOS. Don't suspend those websites until a human analyzes them? That'd be ideal, although it seems like that's the system they have. Those humans appear to be instructed to only intervene when Cloudflare itself is the one causing harm. Kiwi Farms is hosted elsewhere using Cloudflare as a CDN.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#254

Post by fjordelectro » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

sealeck wrote: post #205

fjordelectro wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. The push to platform everyone you don't like is accelerating radicalization. Instead of just existing as a small number of weirdos on mainstream platforms with millions of users, they are now building their own silos. Forced from internet infrastructure and payment networks, they are forced to build their own platforms and banks. This is happening now. The…

> Instead of just existing as a small number of weirdos on mainstream platforms with millions of users, they are now building their own silos. This is _not_ about that - these people are building their own siloes; Cloudflare are hosting them. If Cloudflare stop providing services to them it will reduce their ability to host their own siloes.

> If Cloudflare stop providing services to them it will reduce their ability to host their own siloes.

Yeah no it won't, well at least not in the long run. If anything good comes from all of this, it is that the internet by necessity will become more resilient. Unfortunately, enhanced resiliency will come at the cost of bifurcation. We told the exiled to just 'build your own platform' and 'build your own bank' but we didn't think that they would listen.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#255

Post by mmmpop » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #201

weberer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The group they're trying to target here is a terrorist group. Not even in a metaphorical sense. It's people who try to harass random transgender people to the point of suicide or murder.

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#256

Post by chc » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

3sGPqEu59EGDFUn wrote: post #234

chc wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The group they're trying to target here is a terrorist group. Not even in a metaphorical sense. It's people who try to harass random transgender people to the point of suicide or murder.

If they are a terrorist group (or otherwise doing something "wrong"), then the appropriate means to deal with that is courts and law enforcement, not a CDN.

I agree, I wish we had a law enforcement apparatus that cared about protecting transgender people. But we don't have a clear path to that at the moment, and in the meantime we want to avoid more people being killed. Thus you have people trying to argue for more informal procedures that revolve around social pressure, telling companies basically "This is obviously way beyond the pale, you should not associate yourself with this." It's not a good state for things to be in, but pretending things are better than they are is an even worse solution.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#257

Post by sophacles » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #222

sealeck wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. They're attacking KiwiFarms for their agenda of trying to drive people to commit suicide.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#258

Post by SrslyJosh » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #222

sealeck wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. They're attacking KiwiFarms for their agenda of trying to drive people to commit suicide.

Quoted post unavailable.

If you believed that KF was performing "investigative journalism", you wouldn't be posting this with a throwaway.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#259

Post by whalecancer » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #201

weberer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The group they're trying to target here is a terrorist group. Not even in a metaphorical sense. It's people who try to harass random transgender people to the point of suicide or murder.

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#260

Post by sascha_sl » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

cowtools wrote: post #247

sascha_sl wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all that while the company refuses to acknowledge that it is full backing. Cloudflare loves to call back on the law when defending Kiwifarms, but then equate themselves to a public utility. If the law intended for it, DDoS protection would be a public utility or at least a protected class of service that can't refuse customers. And if you say that it should be and the law is just lagging behind (and I'd tend to a…

The law describes DDoS attacks as a felony. The technology makes it such that it's infeasable to prevent DDoS attacks without a centralized entity like cloudflare.

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 them. That responsibility would be with lawmakers and the executive branch. Just as it would be their responsibility to enable feasible prosecution of defamation on the site. They don't do either.