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

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

boston.conman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 516 posts

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#431

Post by closewith »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #407
closewith wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only via the original method of commerce. An online retailer who geoblocks users does not have to open the geoblock for users who move into the geoblocked regions. I have first-hand experience, as I ran a company that geoblocked US users for legal reasons and successfully defended chargebacks by users who made transactions in the EU and disputed them from the US. Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration proc…

"Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers.

> Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method.

This is a naive view of the internet that does not stand the test of legislative reality. It's perfectly reasonable (and in our case was only path to compliance) to limit access to certain geographic locations.

> I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers.

In our case, our customers were trying to commit friendly fraud by requesting a chargeback because they didn't like a geoblock, which is also what the GP was suggesting.

Using chargebacks this way is nearly unique to the US and thankfully EU banks will deny such frivolous claims.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#432

Post by throwaway290 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125
zipliners wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow/deny list is more descriptive. That's one good reason for using those terms. Do you agree? In reply to your argument, the deny list (the actual list, apart from what term we use for it) is necessarily something negatively laden, since the items denied are denied due to the real risks/costs they otherwise impose. So using and embracing the less direct phrase 'black' rather than 'deny' in this case seems unlikely…

> Allow/deny list is more descriptive It really isn’t. It’s a novel term, which implies a functional difference from the common term. Like, I can run around insisting on calling soup food drink because it’s technically more descriptive, that doesn’t mean I’m communicating better. To the extent we have a bug in our language, it’s probably in describing dark brown skin tones as black. Not a problem with the word black…

Calling soup drink doesn't clarify anything. There's a lot of soup that is not drink. But "allow" vs "white",, "deny" vs "black", one is 100% more descriptive than the other

Arguing that allow/deny or allow/block is less descriptive is basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" (and those are the BEST two reasons of all other possibilities)

for those reasons, it's expected that using "black" instead of "deny" will have more support as programmers age and become more reactionary on average, but it doesn't make it any less stupid and racially insensitive

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#433

Post by JohnMakin »

dang wrote: post #430
phyzome wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It think it's fair play to claim that someone doesn't have relevant experience when it seems very clear that they do not.

It's too easy for these things to seem clear and then turn out not to be right at all; moreover there's no need to get personal about these things - it has no benefit and there's an obvious cost.

Again, I would challenge your assertion that this was a personal attack. This comment i responded to, to me, seemed to be coming from a place that has never managed such things on a public facing web interface. it does not seem possible to me to make such a comment without such prior knowledge. I will admit that i did not articulate my comment as such,as sibling comments sufficiently have done, and it probably came off as unnecessarily snarky, and for that I apologize - I do not see it as a personal attack though, at least not on purpose, and dont see it as being flag worthy. but that’s fine, I dont mod here, and dont pretend to know how it is to mod here. so in the future i guess i’ll just avoid such impossible to discern scrutiny if i can.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#434

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwaway290 wrote: post #432
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allow/deny list is more descriptive It really isn’t. It’s a novel term, which implies a functional difference from the common term. Like, I can run around insisting on calling soup food drink because it’s technically more descriptive, that doesn’t mean I’m communicating better. To the extent we have a bug in our language, it’s probably in describing dark brown skin tones as black. Not a problem with the word black…

Calling soup drink doesn't clarify anything. There's a lot of soup that is not drink. But "allow" vs "white",, "deny" vs "black", one is 100% more descriptive than the other Arguing that allow/deny or allow/block is less descriptive is basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" (and thos…

> basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time"

It’s everyone I need to communicate this to already understands what those terms mean.

Also, white and blacklisting isn’t technical jargon. It’s used across industries, by people day to day and in common media. Allow/deny listing would be jargon, because nobody outside a small circle uses it and thus unambiguously understands what it means.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#435

Post by throwaway290 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #434
throwaway290 wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling soup drink doesn't clarify anything. There's a lot of soup that is not drink. But "allow" vs "white",, "deny" vs "black", one is 100% more descriptive than the other Arguing that allow/deny or allow/block is less descriptive is basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" (and thos…

> basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" It’s everyone I need to communicate this to already understands what those terms mean. Also, white and blacklisting isn’t technical jargon. It’s used across industries, by people day to day and in common media. Allow/deny listing would be jarg…

It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class"

For the same reason, "allow-list" list is not jargon, just like "component" or "extension"

To me there is one issue only: two syllables vs one (not a problem with block vs black for example but a problem with allow vs white) and that's about it.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#436

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwaway290 wrote: post #435
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time" It’s everyone I need to communicate this to already understands what those terms mean. Also, white and blacklisting isn’t technical jargon. It’s used across industries, by people day to day and in common media. Allow/deny listing would be jarg…

It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class" For the same reason, "allow-list" list is not jargon, just like "component" or "extension" To me there is one issue only: two syllables vs one (not a problem with block vs black for example but a problem with allow vs whit…

> "allow-list" list is not jargon

Of course it is. If I tell someone to allow list a group of people for an event, that requires further explanation. It’s not self explanatory because it’s non-standard.

> just like "component" or "extension"

If you use them the way they are commonly used, yes. If you repurpose them into a neologism, no. (Most non-acronym jargon involves repurposing common words for a specific context. Glass cockpit. Repo. Server.)

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#437

Post by throwaway290 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #436
throwaway290 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class" For the same reason, "allow-list" list is not jargon, just like "component" or "extension" To me there is one issue only: two syllables vs one (not a problem with block vs black for example but a problem with allow vs whit…

> "allow-list" list is not jargon Of course it is. If I tell someone to allow list a group of people for an event, that requires further explanation. It’s not self explanatory because it’s non-standard. > just like "component" or "extension" If you use them the way they are commonly used, yes. If you repurpose them into a neologism, no. (Most non-acronym jargon involves repurposing common words for a specific context…

If you tell your friend to put somebody on an allow-list and that requires further explanation, I think the problem is not the term but your friend, sorry...

Server, cockpit those are jargon. Allow and deny just aren't. Whatever.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#438

Post by TZubiri »

simoncion wrote: post #422
TZubiri wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and this makes ip banning have false positives. But ultimately it's worth it, you are responsible for your neighbours.

> [Y]ou are responsible for [how] your neighbours [use the Internet]. Nope. I'm very much not responsible for snooping on my neighbor's private communications. If anyone is responsible for doing any sort of abuse monitoring, it is the ISP chosen by my neighbor.

This is not a normative social prescription, but a descriptive natural phenomenon.

If there's a neighbour in your building who is running a bitcoin farm on your residential building, it's going to cause issues for you. If people from your country commit crime in other countries and violate visas, then you are going to face a quota due to them. If you bank at ACME Bank, and then it turns out they were arms traffickers, your funds were pooled and helped launder their money, you are responsible by association .

Reputation is not only individual, but there is group reputation, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#439

Post by dang »

JohnMakin wrote: post #433
dang wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too easy for these things to seem clear and then turn out not to be right at all; moreover there's no need to get personal about these things - it has no benefit and there's an obvious cost.

Again, I would challenge your assertion that this was a personal attack. This comment i responded to, to me, seemed to be coming from a place that has never managed such things on a public facing web interface. it does not seem possible to me to make such a comment without such prior knowledge. I will admit that i did not articulate my comment as such,as sibling comments sufficiently have done, and it probably came o…

It's possible the phrase "personal attack" means something a bit different to you than to me, because otherwise I don't think we're really disagreeing. Your good intentions are clear and I appreciate it! We can use a different phrase if you prefer.

I'd just add one other thing: there's one word in your post here which packs a huge amount of meaning and that's seemed (as in "seemed to be coming from a place [etc.]"). I can't tell you how often it happens that what seems one way to one user—even when the "seems" seems overwhelmingly likely, as in near-impossible that it could be any other way—turns out to simply be mistaken, or at least to seem quite opposite to the other person. It's thousands of times easier to make a mistake in this way than people realize; and unfortunately the cost can be quite high when that happens because the other person often feels indignant ("how dare you assume that I [etc.]").

In the present case, I don't know anything about the experience level of the user who posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011628, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45011442 was definitely posted by someone who has managed heavy-duty web facing services, and that comment says more or less the same thing as the other one.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#440

Post by ordu »

lxgr wrote: post #355
ordu wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact, that no one is going to forbid me to ban IPs. Therefore I will ban IPs and IPs ranges because it is the cheapest solution.

Sure, you can keep blocking IPs, and I'll keep arguing for a ban on IP country bans (at least for existing customers) :)

If you don't see that your campaign is futile and want to waste you time, just go ahead, don't ask for my permission.
Post reply on HN