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

61–70 of 516 posts

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

#61

Post by ThrowMeAway1618 »

defrost wrote: post #40
ThrowMeAway1618 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no need to disagree on such strongly worded statements. What's the bigoted history of those terms? from here[0]: "The English dramatist Philip Massinger used the phrase "black list" in his 1639 tragedy The Unnatural Combat.[2] "After the restoration of the English monarchy brought Charles II of England to the throne in 1660, a list of regicides named those to be punished for the execution of his father.[3]…

[flagged]

The origin of the term 'black list' had absolutely nothing to do with the melanin content of anyone. In fact, when that term was coined, it had nothing to do with the melanin content of anyone. It was a list of the enemies of Charles II.

That's why I posted that. I'd also point out that in my lifetime, folks with darker skin called themselves black and proudly so. As Mr. Brown[0][1] will unambiguously tell you. Regardless, claiming that a term for the property of absorbing visible light is bigoted, to every use of such a term is ridiculous on its face.

By your logic, if I wear black socks, I'm a bigot? Or am only a bigot if I actually refer to those socks as "black." Should I use "socks of color" so as not to be a bigot?

If I like that little black dress, I'm a bigot as well? Or only if I say "I like that little black dress?"

Look. I get it. Melanin content is worthless as a determinant of the value of a human. And anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely and sadly mistaken.

It's important to let folks know that there's only one race of sentient primates on this planet -- Homo Sapiens. What's more, we are all, no matter where we come from, incredibly closely related from a genetic standpoint.

The history of bigotry, murder and enslavement by and to our fellow humans is long, brutal and disgusting.

But nitpicking terms (like black list) that never had anything to do with that bigotry seems performative at best. As I mentioned above, do you also make such complaints about black socks or shoes? Black dresses? Black foregrounds/backgrounds?

If not, why not? That's not a rhetorical question.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM1_tJ6a2Kw

[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jamesbrown/sayitloudimblacka...

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

#62

Post by herbst »

More than half of my traffic is Bing, Claude and for whatever reason the Facebook bots.

None of these are main main traffic drivers, just the main resource hogs. And the main reason when my site turns slow (usually an AI, microsoft or Facebook ignoring any common sense)

China and co is only a very small portion of my malicious traffic. Gladly. It's usually US companies who disrespect my robots.txt and DNS rate limits who make me the most problems.

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

#63

Post by ahtihn »

PeterStuer wrote: post #47

FAFO from both sides. Not defending this bot at all. That said, the shenanigans some rogue or clueless webmasters are up to blocking legitimate and non intrusive or load causing M2M trafic is driving some projects into the arms of 'scrape services' that use far less considerate nor ethical means to get to the data you pay them for. IP blocking is useless if your sources are hundreds of thousands of people worldwide j…

What? Are you trying to say it's legitimate to want to scrape websites that are actively blocking you because you think you are "not intrusive"? And that this justifies paying for bad actors to do it for you?

I can't believe the entitlement.

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

#64

Post by roguebloodrage »

This is everything I have for AS132203 (Tencent). It has your addresses plus others I have found and confirmed using ipinfo.io

43.131.0.0/18 43.129.32.0/20 101.32.0.0/20 101.32.102.0/23 101.32.104.0/21 101.32.112.0/23 101.32.112.0/24 101.32.114.0/23 101.32.116.0/23 101.32.118.0/23 101.32.120.0/23 101.32.122.0/23 101.32.124.0/23 101.32.126.0/23 101.32.128.0/23 101.32.130.0/23 101.32.13.0/24 101.32.132.0/22 101.32.132.0/24 101.32.136.0/21 101.32.140.0/24 101.32.144.0/20 101.32.160.0/20 101.32.16.0/20 101.32.17.0/24 101.32.176.0/20 101.32.192.0/20 101.32.208.0/20 101.32.224.0/22 101.32.228.0/22 101.32.232.0/22 101.32.236.0/23 101.32.238.0/23 101.32.240.0/20 101.32.32.0/20 101.32.48.0/20 101.32.64.0/20 101.32.78.0/23 101.32.80.0/20 101.32.84.0/24 101.32.85.0/24 101.32.86.0/24 101.32.87.0/24 101.32.88.0/24 101.32.89.0/24 101.32.90.0/24 101.32.91.0/24 101.32.94.0/23 101.32.96.0/20 101.33.0.0/23 101.33.100.0/22 101.33.10.0/23 101.33.10.0/24 101.33.104.0/21 101.33.11.0/24 101.33.112.0/22 101.33.116.0/22 101.33.120.0/21 101.33.128.0/22 101.33.132.0/22 101.33.136.0/22 101.33.140.0/22 101.33.14.0/24 101.33.144.0/22 101.33.148.0/22 101.33.15.0/24 101.33.152.0/22 101.33.156.0/22 101.33.160.0/22 101.33.164.0/22 101.33.168.0/22 101.33.17.0/24 101.33.172.0/22 101.33.176.0/22 101.33.180.0/22 101.33.18.0/23 101.33.184.0/22 101.33.188.0/22 101.33.24.0/24 101.33.25.0/24 101.33.26.0/23 101.33.30.0/23 101.33.32.0/21 101.33.40.0/24 101.33.4.0/23 101.33.41.0/24 101.33.42.0/23 101.33.44.0/22 101.33.48.0/22 101.33.52.0/22 101.33.56.0/22 101.33.60.0/22 101.33.64.0/19 101.33.64.0/23 101.33.96.0/22 103.52.216.0/22 103.52.216.0/23 103.52.218.0/23 103.7.28.0/24 103.7.29.0/24 103.7.30.0/24 103.7.31.0/24 43.130.0.0/18 43.130.64.0/18 43.130.128.0/19 43.130.160.0/19 43.132.192.0/18 43.133.64.0/19 43.134.128.0/18 43.135.0.0/18 43.135.64.0/18 43.135.192.0/19 43.153.0.0/18 43.153.192.0/18 43.154.64.0/18 43.154.128.0/18 43.154.192.0/18 43.155.0.0/18 43.155.128.0/18 43.156.192.0/18 43.157.0.0/18 43.157.64.0/18 43.157.128.0/18 43.159.128.0/19 43.163.64.0/18 43.164.192.0/18 43.165.128.0/18 43.166.128.0/18 43.166.224.0/19 49.51.132.0/23 49.51.140.0/23 49.51.166.0/23 119.28.64.0/19 119.28.128.0/20 129.226.160.0/19 150.109.32.0/19 150.109.96.0/19 170.106.32.0/19 170.106.176.0/20

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

#65

Post by lxgr »

thrown-0825 wrote: post #52
lxgr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? Just block all non-US IPs! If it works for my health insurance company, essentially all streaming services (including not even being able to cancel service from abroad), and many banks, it’ll work for you as well. Surely bad actors wouldn’t use VPNs or botnets, and your customers never travel abroad?

If you are traveling without a vpn then you are asking for trouble

Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s due to companies engaging in silly pseudo-security. I wish that would stop.

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

#66

Post by praptak »

phplovesong wrote: post #53

We block China and Russia. DDOS attacks and other hack attempts went down by 95%. We have no chinese users/customers so in theory this does not effect business at all. Also russia is sanctioned and our russian userbase does not actually live in russia, so blocking russia did not effect users at all.

How did you choose where to get the IP addresses to block? I guess I'm mostly asking where this problem (i.e. "get all IPs for country X") is on the scale from "obviously solved" to "hard and you need to play catch up constantly".

I did a quick search and found a few databases but none of them looks like the obvious winner.

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

#67

Post by devoutsalsa »

herbst wrote: post #62

More than half of my traffic is Bing, Claude and for whatever reason the Facebook bots. None of these are main main traffic drivers, just the main resource hogs. And the main reason when my site turns slow (usually an AI, microsoft or Facebook ignoring any common sense) China and co is only a very small portion of my malicious traffic. Gladly. It's usually US companies who disrespect my robots.txt and DNS rate limits…

There are a lot of dumb questions, and I pose all of them to Claude. There's no infrastructure in place for this, but I would support some business model where LLM-of-choice compensates website operators for resources consumed by my super dumb questions. Like how content creators get paid when I watch with a YouTube Premium subscription. I doubt this is practical in practice.

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

#68

Post by closewith »

lxgr wrote: post #45
raffraffraff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And across the water, my wife has banned US IP addresses from her online shop once or twice. She runs a small business making products that don't travel well, and would cost a lot to ship to the US. It's a huge country with many people. Answering pointless queries, saying "No, I can't do that" in 50 different ways and eventually dealing with negative reviews from people you've never sold to and possibly even never ta…

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.

Chargebacks aren't the panacea you're used to outside the US, so that's a non-issue.

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

#69

Post by lxgr »

mvdtnz wrote: post #56
lxgr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? Just block all non-US IPs! If it works for my health insurance company, essentially all streaming services (including not even being able to cancel service from abroad), and many banks, it’ll work for you as well. Surely bad actors wouldn’t use VPNs or botnets, and your customers never travel abroad?

You think all streaming services have banned non US IPs? What world do you live in?

This is based on personal experience. At least two did not let me unsubscribe from abroad in the past.

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

#70

Post by PeterStuer »

ahtihn wrote: post #63
PeterStuer wrote: post #47

FAFO from both sides. Not defending this bot at all. That said, the shenanigans some rogue or clueless webmasters are up to blocking legitimate and non intrusive or load causing M2M trafic is driving some projects into the arms of 'scrape services' that use far less considerate nor ethical means to get to the data you pay them for. IP blocking is useless if your sources are hundreds of thousands of people worldwide j…

What? Are you trying to say it's legitimate to want to scrape websites that are actively blocking you because you think you are "not intrusive"? And that this justifies paying for bad actors to do it for you? I can't believe the entitlement.

No. I'm talking about literally legitimate, information that has to be public by law and/or regulation (typically gov stuff), in formats specifically meant for m2m consuption, and still blocked by clueless or malicious outsourced lowest bidder site managers.

And no, I do not use those paid services, even though it would make it much easier.

Post reply on HN