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

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

#311

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

suifbwish wrote: post #310

tptacek wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't look like targeting of Parler; it looks instead like Parler further raised the notoriety of DDoS-Guard, who was improperly claiming IPv4 space from LACNIC.

Wouldn’t Parler just be able to setup reverse proxies to conceal the true location of their hosting? All they would need is about 15 proxies throughout the world and then they could reverse proxy their network obviously latency would suffer. I find the witch hunt a little ridiculous and kind of disturbing since Google/aws/fb are basically choosing to destroy a company in front of the world.

Are you responding to the wrong comment? I do that every once in awhile. The whole point of my comment is that this isn't part of an effort to take Parler down.

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

#312

Post by rhizome » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #133

harry8 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be naieve because I don't think I'm bad faith here. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, I haven't made up my mind and may not. Please elaborate why you think this is not censorship and the distinction. What do you think this is? These are not leading questions they're genuine because I don't understand your point the way you're assuming I do.

GP is under the (incorrect) impression that censorship is only possible if enacted by a government entity. That’s blatantly and provably false, but nevertheless comes up in many discussions of censorship.

If you want to call something self-censorship then do so, but it's not capital-C Censorship. Hopefully you understand the distinction. :P

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

#313

Post by _yoqn » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

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 ....

From the community guidelines:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

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

#314

Post by rhizome » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #308

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. Is it censorship if The NY Times doesn’t publish your letter to the editor? Is it censorship if I kick you out of my party when you get drunk and start yelling racist slurs? You could take a maximalist view and say yes, those are censorship, but I doubt you would find many people that would say you shouldn’t do those things.

> That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?

Where do you draw the line between censorship (as you define it) and editorial policy?

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

#315

Post by _yoqn » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

stavros wrote: post #279

_yoqn wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

From the community guidelines:

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Among other pertinent points.

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

#316

Post by rhizome » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #132

rhizome wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't censorship, and saying that it is censorship is a bad-faith tell or a sign of naivete. Furthermore, these people are already angry and distrustful, so how much of a movement's psychoses should the commercial world be forced to accomodate? Fringe groups have options they've always had: colo and common-carrier lines into their own server/racks/datacenter. Only thing missing is talent, which is nobody's probl…

I must be naieve because I don't think I'm bad faith here. I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, I haven't made up my mind and may not. Please elaborate why you think this is not censorship and the distinction. What do you think this is? These are not leading questions they're genuine because I don't understand your point the way you're assuming I do.

The distinction is between a publisher deciding what content they want to publish and an outside party enforcing a standard.

Should TV Guide have to publish porn because I want it to?

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

#317

Post by StavrosK » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #315

stavros wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

From the community guidelines: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Among other pertinent points.

That was a reply to the argument.

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

#318

Post by andrewflnr » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

hluska wrote: post #297

andrewflnr wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The potential is only lower until people figure out that looking for irregularities in people's IP address allocation is a great way to deplatform people you don't like. I'd say that grace period is just about over.

I’m not trying to be argumentative but I don’t really see this as a net loss. In fact, I think it’s a positive for everyone. Fraudulently obtained IPs are bad for the overall health of the internet. It’s also bad for engineers - I don’t see how or even why you would want to build a resilient, high availability application on a fraudulently obtained IP. If anything, this will encourage clients to ask questions when th…

Fair enough. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.

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

#319

Post by _yoqn » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:14 AM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #317

_yoqn wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the community guidelines: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Among other pertinent points.

That was a reply to the argument.

It sounds more like an ad hominem jab to me. Was there any response to the substance of my comment?

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

#320

Post by StavrosK » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 9:53 AM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #319

StavrosK wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a reply to the argument.

It sounds more like an ad hominem jab to me. Was there any response to the substance of my comment?

Let me break it down for you: Welcoming dissent so it can be refuted does not work with far-right people, because they cannot be debated or convinced otherwise.