Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#441

Post by cfvsdfasdfasd » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:46 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

#442

Post by psyc » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #398

rndgermandude wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide? This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to th…

Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#443

Post by wyager » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

a_shovel wrote: post #189

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…

> ...we worked with our Proudflare employee resource group to identify an organization that supported LGBTQ+ rights and donate 100 percent of the fees for our services to them. I'm sure their LGBTQ+ employees will appreciate that when they get doxxed, swatted, and harassed every hour of the day and night because they're providing critical resources to the groups doing so. Their position probably really does come from…

KF doesn't doxx people for being gay. As far as I can tell, KF has a huge LGBT presence in their userbase. They have doxxed people who are gay, but not because they are gay.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#444

Post by xdennis » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

weberer wrote: post #108

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…

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?

> And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism.

No, it's not. Not everything that's bad is terrorism.

Terrorism is specifically about using violence. Don't water down terms.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#445

Post by wyager » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

phillipcarter wrote: post #385

dxuh wrote: post #208

Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…

> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.

"Free speech" for normal people means "the practical freedom to speak freely", not whatever nitpicking legalistic definition I infer you're using.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#446

Post by psyc » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #354

sieabahlpark wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?

He’s talking about transgender people, not priests

And that just makes all the difference, don't it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#447

Post by BryantD » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

ta1235414335 wrote: post #418

karcass wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "less clear" how this applies to Kiwifarms. Their TOS says they "may" remove content that: "Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public." Kiwifarms doxxing and swatting is documented six ways from Sunday, and it's hardly just keffals.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think that you have to take responsibility when your actions (doxing) result in a higher probability of other actions (swatting). The exact degree of responsibility varies.

You believe the same thing. Cloudflare dropping Kiwifarms wouldn’t directly result in Kiwifarms going dark; it’s just a highly predictable outcome. If you don’t think a company is responsible for anything but their direct actions, the argument for providing service to Kiwifarms becomes much weaker.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#448

Post by DoctorOW » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

throwrqX wrote: post #424

DoctorOW wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.* Which is why I continued on with addressing the argument. > Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators) False equivalency I'd say. Yes, the entertainment industry as a whole SUCKS. But if you think about it for even a second, you'll realize there is a differ…

You didn't give me an argument you gave me a twitter thread. The argument I interpreted from the thread was if you let your bar be associated with a Nazi (because you served them) then down the road they will invite their other Nazi friends and eventually your bar will become a Nazi bar. In the context of this HN thread I take this argument to mean, well Null is associating with people who harassed this woman to deat…

Close, but you're missing the point. It becomes a Nazi bar, regardless of the owner's intentions for the bar. So arguing the semantics of one admin's beliefs is irrelevant.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#449

Post by kevinh » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #351

hooverd wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to decide what is "political", too.

Topics that cause disagreements not related to the job can be classified as personal and/or political. We should not take X as client, they are bad -> political We should not take X as client, my ex work there -> political We should not take X as client, they are unreliable with payments -> not political We should not take X as client, clients W, Y, and Z will drop us -> not political

Is a man talking about his wife political?

Is a man talking about his husband political?

Is a person transitioning political?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#450

Post by sophacles » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

ta1235414335 wrote: post #323

sascha_sl wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't checked, but I expect the chilling effect is getting most of them to not rock the boat too hard. If you want an example for such targeting though, Liz Fong-Jones has a thread on Kiwifarms because she's outspoken and worked at Google (and thus being seen as more influential / more of a threat). The thread has also significantly slowed down after she left Google.

[flagged]

No post body was provided.