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

491–500 of 516 posts

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

#491

Post by johnisgood »

pabs3 wrote: post #479
johnisgood wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a public git repository for the most part, that is the essence of my website, not really much writings besides READMEs, comments in code and commits.

A public git repository is even more interesting, for both ArchiveTeam Codearchiver, and Software Heritage. The latter offers an interface for saving code automatically. https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Codearchiver https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Software_Heritage https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/

After initial save, do they perform automatic git pulls? What happens if there are potential conflicts? I wonder how it all works behind the surface. I know I ran into issues with "git pull --all" before, for example. Or what if it is public software that is not mine? I saved some git repositories (should I do .tar.gz too for the same project? Does it know anything about versions?).

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

#492

Post by BoredPositron »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #460
BoredPositron wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is jumping to any conclusions except you with this very comment. ;)

My conclusion is: People downvote, but why, when I am merely stating, that the reasoning is circular? Are they unable to get this simple fact? Or are they interpreting more into it, than there is? What is more likely? I choose to believe the second one.

You realize we can't see the scores on other people's posts, right? We have no idea whether or how many downvotes you received. You're talking to people who have no interest in doing business with these countries, so I don't understand how this could be circular reasoning.

Your offhand comment also doesn't make sense in the context of this subthread. The effort companies have to invest to do business with Russia and China is prohibitively high, and that's a completely valid concern. It's not that everyone universally hates or loves these countries. It's simply impractical for most businesses to navigate those markets.

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

#493

Post by BlueTemplar »

NegativeK wrote: post #314
kiitos wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every single IPv4 address in existence receives constant malicious traffic, from uncountably many malicious actors, on all common service ports (80, 443, 22, etc.) and, for HTTP specifically, to an enormous and growing number of common endpoints (mostly WordPress related, last I checked) if you put your server up on the public internet then this is just table stakes stuff that you always need to deal with, doesn't re…

I've heard this point raised elsewhere, and I think it's underplaying the magnitude of the issue. Background scanner noise on the internet is incredibly common, but the AI scraping is not at the same level. Wikipedia has published that their infrastructure costs have notably shot up since LLMs started scraping them. I've seen similar idiotic behavior on a small wiki I run; a single AI company took the data usage from…

From your example (and many others), AI companies are engaging in DDoS too, so why wouldn't law enforcement target them too ?

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

#494

Post by Dylan16807 »

closewith wrote: post #486
Dylan16807 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ancestor post was about being unable to get support for a product, so I thought you were talking about the same situation. Refusal to support is a legitimate grievance. Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit? Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? The…

If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. > Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and h…

> If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't.

As a response to someone talking about customers traveling and needing support. But yeah geoblocks can occur in different situations with different appropriate resolutions.

> In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.

If you provided zero service at all, they should get their money back. And calling a chargeback in that situation "friendly fraud" is ridiculous.

If they weren't even asking for a refund and using a chargeback out of spite, that's bad, but that's a different problem from fraud.

For someone that did sign up via VPN, would they be able to access the cancellation page via VPN?

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

#495

Post by TZubiri »

simoncion wrote: post #481
TZubiri wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If there's a neighbour... What ass-backwards jurisdiction do you live in where any of the things you mention in this paragraph are true, let alone the notion that uninvolved bystanders would be responsible for the behavior of others?

> 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.

Natural phenomenon, not legal, your power block will go down.

>If people from your country commit crime in other countries and violate visas, then you are going to face a quota due to them.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/rest...

Visa overstays are tracked and they may affect policy decisions on inmigration. Common in many countries not just the US.

>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 .

I don't know if you've ever done international banking of any significant amount, but try receiving money from a Seychelle's account or something like that. In whatever jurisdiction you open an account in, you will share the reputation of that jurisdiction.

I'll add another one, spam in emails is combatted not only on a domain and IP reputation basis, but ip blocks or even ASN's can be marked for spam. And another one, opening a company in a jurisdiction might buy you the reputation of said jurisdiction.

Reputation is not only individual but group-based, this is because identities can be forged by an identity-provider, be it a passport-issuing country, an ASN, a Bank, a DoS company registry, etc..

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

#496

Post by pabs3 »

johnisgood wrote: post #491
pabs3 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A public git repository is even more interesting, for both ArchiveTeam Codearchiver, and Software Heritage. The latter offers an interface for saving code automatically. https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Codearchiver https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Software_Heritage https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/

After initial save, do they perform automatic git pulls? What happens if there are potential conflicts? I wonder how it all works behind the surface. I know I ran into issues with "git pull --all" before, for example. Or what if it is public software that is not mine? I saved some git repositories (should I do .tar.gz too for the same project? Does it know anything about versions?).

On Software Heritage: for forges (GitLab, cgit etc), every couple of months SWH lists all repos, pulls new/updated ones. I think if you save an individual repo, it gets pulled later too, but I'm not sure of the schedule. They have custom tooling (open source) for doing the importing of repos, tarballs and other things. They deduplicate on the backend, so if you cloned some repos then the files/commits that are shared between them are saved once. They import the git tags (and other refs) too.

ArchiveTeam Codearchiver is quite a bit different, it does one-shot archiving of repos into VCS-native export formats, like git bundles. There is some deduplication based on commit hashes I think.

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

#497

Post by lxgr »

542354234235 wrote: post #263
lxgr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as your customer base never travels and needs support, sure, I guess. The only way of communicating with such companies are chargebacks through my bank (which always at least has a phone number reachable from abroad), so I’d make sure to account for these.

Usually CC companies require email records (another way of communicating with a company) showing you attempted to resolve the problem but could not. I don’t think “I tried to visit the website that I bought X item from while in Africa and couldn’t get to it” is sufficient.

I really wish I could just email companies, but at least many US based ones don’t offer that way of communicating.

It’s usually phone support only, or some horrible web chat that leaves only the company with a permanent record of what was said. (I suspect that’s on purpose.)

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

#498

Post by closewith »

lxgr wrote: post #489
closewith wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so you're grasping at straws here, because: a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules, and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy. We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside…

Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpret…

> Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background?

I'm very open to a different perspective if it's grounded in reality. I'm only judging you on your comments, which to date have been factually inaccurate (to the point that I wonder if you're trolling?),

> Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks,

At vastly different rates (~10% vs ~80%)

> but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions)

Geoblocking a region is not being unresponsive and will not result in a breach of network rules. Lots of precedent and completely uncontroversial but yet you believe otherwise.

> seems like an easy win for the issuer.

Seems is the operative word here, but it only seems so from your uninformed position. Even after quoting the MC terms that show that you're incorrect, you're still not open to new information.

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

#499

Post by closewith »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #494
closewith wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. > Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and h…

> If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. As a response to someone talking about customers traveling and needing support. But yeah geoblocks can occur in different situations with different appropriate resolutions. > In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in…

> If you provided zero service at all, they should get their money back. And calling a chargeback in that situation "friendly fraud" is ridiculous.

No, if a company upholds their side of a contract, the customer must too, within the bounds of the law.

A chargeback in that situation is the _definition_ of "friendly fraud" and is actual criminal fraud.

> If they weren't even asking for a refund and using a chargeback out of spite, that's bad, but that's a different problem from fraud.

That's also criminal fraud.

US consumer are often shocked that "customer is always right" customer service doesn't extend beyond their borders and that they can't chargeback their way out of contracts they've signed.

> For someone that did sign up via VPN, would they be able to access the cancellation page via VPN?

It doesn't matter. If our terms prohibited VPN use to avoid geoblocking (which they did), it's irrelevant whether your VPN can or cannot access the cancellation page on a given day. You can email or write to us. All perfectly legal, lawful, and backed by merchant account providers.

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

#500

Post by lxgr »

closewith wrote: post #498
lxgr wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpret…

> Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? I'm very open to a different perspective if it's grounded in reality. I'm only judging you on your comments, which to date have been factually inaccurate (to the point that I wonder if you're trolling?), > Both in and outside the US, merc…

> At vastly different rates (~10% vs ~80%)

Is that your observed rate or an industry-wide trend?

If it's the former, I'll stick with my theory – you're extrapolating from a pretty specific scenario to a different one. My guess would be that you're conflating geoblocking of content (what you seem to have experience with) with geoblocking of the cancellation method (what this thread is about).

If it's the latter, you're wildly off base:

> Merchants win an average of 50% of representments, though there are differences by country: U.S.: 54%, U.K.: 49.1%, AU: 46.7% and Brazil: 36.9%.

(from https://www.mastercard.com/us/en/news-and-trends/Insights/20...)

In fact, this is the opposite of what you're claiming (i.e. a higher win rate for merchants outside the US).

Post reply on HN