Terminating Service for 8Chan • Hacker News Board

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#781

Post by yosamino » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:25 PM UTC

I am really sick of the high horse that this company thinks they are on because of their pseudo-neutrality.

What should normally happen if you come across some criminal or reprensible content, is that it's possible to figure out who owns the IP space,and if it's not already a criminal organisation decide to aid the ISP in running a reputable business and send them an abuse notice. This has the effect that bad actors need to move to bad networks, which you can quarantine at your own network boundary - I get to make a decision as private citizen on what is allowed on my network.

That is a process that works.

Cloudflare obfuscates the real IP space, which means that the best outcome I can achieve from them is that they will forward my abuse complaint to possibly the mob, which is not a move I am willing to make.

In this way they are not just a DDOS protection service, they are business protection for criminals. And because of their size and because they allow them to hide behind their IPs it makes it impossible for me to make a private decision about what to not allow on my networks.

If they are so happy about hosting the vomit that the internet has to offer, why not assign an IP block to the easily identifiable garbage that exists.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#782

Post by avip » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:26 PM UTC

jumbopapa wrote: post #743

onli wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TBH, services like Cloudflare should be free to operate as they please. A publisher is simply not entitled to a CDN If a CDN is necessary to support the site being a public platform that's not a given. This whole "A private company should be able to act like it pleases" that Cloudflare mirrors in their news is an ideological standpoint, not an absolute truth. It's certainly possible to see it differently: If a comp…

I genuinely do not believe the access to the guns are the issue here. There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method. It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.

I’d strongly suggest watching John Oliver’s Aussi gun control sequel. It’s hilarious and educating (surely he’s a biased source, but at min you’ll get a good laugh)

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#783

Post by michannne » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:26 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #563

dangxiaopin wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Cloudflare's logic, ISPs should have stopped peering with Facebook after NZ shooter livestreamed there.

Perhaps only if commenters glorified it? I'm sure you can find people to do that on FB or anywhere else, and it may take time to moderate such commentary. But no one would deplatform FB or Twitter -- they're too big. This approach means we have a powerful dynamic in place to limit the reach of any social media that isn't already "too big to deplatform".

>they're too big

And therein lies the problem. This sort of behavior is tolerated in Facebook and Twitter simply because they are "large" by some random metric. If FB or Twitter decides one day to mass censor a certain type of content, it somehow isn't a big deal because they are "large"

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#784

Post by mopsi » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:27 PM UTC

dfox wrote: post #753

jorams wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This actually happens in Europe, typically when authorities decide squatters should not be tolerated. How often does that happen in countries where squatting itself is not illegal?

I'm genuinely curious in which countries squatting is not illegal. On the other hand cutting off utility service to squatters seems like somewhat different case and another thing I'm curious about is how the squatters managed to get the service itself in the first place as that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the…

> that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the property.

That's the key. Where I live, it only takes online applications to sign up with power companies and telcos, if infrastructure is already in place (cables laid, power meters installed, etc) and it's not associated with any active contract. After sign-up, services are remotely turned on and kept on as long as bills are being paid.

It's not up to service providers to police property rights. They own or have rights to infrastructure leading up to the final junction box and what happens downstream is not their business.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#785

Post by throw0101a » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:30 PM UTC

jumbopapa wrote: post #743

onli wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TBH, services like Cloudflare should be free to operate as they please. A publisher is simply not entitled to a CDN If a CDN is necessary to support the site being a public platform that's not a given. This whole "A private company should be able to act like it pleases" that Cloudflare mirrors in their news is an ideological standpoint, not an absolute truth. It's certainly possible to see it differently: If a comp…

I genuinely do not believe the access to the guns are the issue here. There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method. It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.

> There are plenty of ways to accomplish something like this without a gun, so removing the guns from the picture would just change the method.

The numbers don't seem to bear this out. There seems to be a fairly proportional relationship between gun ownership and per capita gun deaths; see point two:

* https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-st...

> It's lazy to just say that "gun control will fix this" because you're ignoring solving the actual problem of why people are doing this.

While the desire to do certain things may remain, it may be possible to limit the practical ways that desire may be implemented. These extreme cases will probably be the hardest to stop, but there's a lot of low-level carnage that could be reduced:

* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_

And it isn't even necessarily about bans, but simply a few filters and speed bumps to reduce the chances of hot heads and whack jobs packing heat:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#786

Post by cletus » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:30 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #656

I don't like 8chan as a website, but I'm still not a fan of this move. Feels like no one online wants to just provide a 'dumb pipe', and always want to act like a pseudo publisher trying to dictate what's allowed and what isn't. Imagine if real life utilities did this. If because someone used your property for offensive purposes, the water company cut off the water supply, or the electricity company refused to provid…

> Imagine if real life utilities did this.

You don't have to imagine it. Literally all of these things happen. Examples:

- Utilities restricting or even cutting off crypto miners (eg [1])

- Your phone service has prohibited uses that will get your service disconnected (eg see Section 8, Use of the Service in [2]).

- Getting water cut off is more difficult but not impossible, I imagine. Some places will cut you off for not paying your bill. Many don't as it's an essential service. I imagine if you resold a residential water supply for commercial purposes, you may well get cut off.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/nyregion/bitcoin-mining-n...

[2] https://legal.hughesnet.com/VoiceServiceAgreement/index.cfm

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#787

Post by gspetr » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:30 PM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #540

zimpenfish wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They choose not to apply this approach to white supremacy. "[...] the measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at the very least, their supporters." https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-t...

White supremacist terrorism cannot be directly ideologically challenged by our present political system in America because it is the founding ideology of the country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer

None of the above mentions race.

Unless you want to define any territorial conflict between 2 sides as always based on race, when race is only incidental to other differences.

The Rwandan genocide was same race, but different ethnicities.

By modern standards, the crusades could also be called racist instead of mostly religious in nature.

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#788

Post by michannne » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #91

When I was younger I thought I was a few speech absolutist. Then I went to where was free speech was absolute and saw what was discussed. Now I favor moderation.

You supported free speech until you came into contact with groups that freely spoke about things you disagreed with, and now you are against free speech? This line of thought is incongruent, you could be a democrat attending republican rallies, a white supremacist attending an LGBT conference, or a POC attending a KKK rally and this sentiment would apply anywhere.

And at the end of day that's fine, because that opinion is protected under free speech

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#789

Post by read_if_gay_ » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #522

odessacubbage wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and what about the the communities for queers and autistics on 8ch that will be lost in order to cater to your particular sense of indignation while in effect doing virtually nothing to limit the ability of psychopathic losers to kill large numbers of people? as an aside assigning any credibility to the motives of crazy person with no value for human life makes no more sense in the case of mass killings than it does…

What about those communities? I'm sure they can stay on 8chan, or find somewhere else? I'd not say the recent far-right terrorism is just from some individual psychopaths with no value for human life. There's a ton of far-right/alt-right ideas out there, on platforms like 8chan, which actively demonizes certain groups of people. It's not like these shootings are just crazy people who just want to kill people at rando…

>What about those communities? I'm sure they can stay on 8chan, or find somewhere else?

Then what’s different about extremist communities?

Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan

#790

Post by cletus » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

dfox wrote: post #753

jorams wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This actually happens in Europe, typically when authorities decide squatters should not be tolerated. How often does that happen in countries where squatting itself is not illegal?

I'm genuinely curious in which countries squatting is not illegal. On the other hand cutting off utility service to squatters seems like somewhat different case and another thing I'm curious about is how the squatters managed to get the service itself in the first place as that usually requires either consent and active participation of previous user at the same address or proving that you have legal right to use the…

In the modern era in developed countries squatting is now largely just trespassing, which is illegal, but there have been periods where that wasn't the case.

Most notably, following the two World Wars you had a large number of young men (primarily) that died overseas with corresponding effects like their family might move as a result and so on. So you had a large number of vacant properties with no clear idea if the owner was still alive or not. So squatting became a way of "solving" that problem. A squatter could get the rights to a place if they occupied it for some long period of time (typically over 10 years) if no one showed up earlier to claim ownership.

In the computerized records era, and with no mass casualties from war in developed countries, this is now relegated to an historical anachronism.