781–790 of 1001 posts
I may be missing a trick here, but what - exactly - gives Cloudflare - a company that provides web services - the moral authority to flatly claim: "that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities." ... and use that as a defense for inaction? It's like saying "Oh, well I can't give the poor money, they might spend it on dr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence is there for the law enforcement apparatus not protecting transgender people in this particular case? Have their been similar cases for cisgender people where the law enforcement apparatus has cared more? I am not sure saying we need mob action to stop other mob action is a good long term solution.
Jesus Christ dude, there's people dying here and you're arguing over technicalities. The site is still up!! No one's been arrested! You'd rather people keep dying while you argue that both sides are bad, while one side is killing people?
In my experience Cloudflare goes too far with offering their security services to everyone. There is a website that's constantly ripping and stealing artistic content from a community I used to be part of. They have an automated process for ripping and reuploading content not meant to be downloadable from small independent artists in this community without informing the artist, obtaining permission or anything. Outra…
What I think is happening: you've exhausted several paths of recourse; the no-name website operators aren't responding; the fly-by-night hosting provider in eastern europe says they won't do anything; but you hit a stroke of luck. In some small, insignificant way, in a tracert or a dig to the perpetrators site, an American Big Tech company popped up. Finally; a name I recognize; someone may listen. Anger is given focus.
CF could act. It wouldn't change anything. Not for the site; not for the artists you support; not for you. I don't know what the right course of action to fix your problem is; I don't have any experience in that domain. I hope you find it, because that situation does suck. But I do know: you can blame CF today, maybe they act, and tomorrow it'll be someone else. You'll be stuck on that treadmill forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have "severe mental issues" and someone prods you knowingly towards your death, that is a crime.
Do cite the penal-code / law that outlaws talking about mentally ill people.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/michel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.
So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. It's not that we value police procedure more than we value the life of the victim. We value rule of law and due process as a society more than any individual gap in applying justice in a given case. Yes, if we ignore procedure and loc…
That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.
I find the article hopeful for the future of free speech on the internet. Even though the ability to host content on the net is one thing and lacking access to most platforms (where the users actually are) like youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok is another. The most important thing nowadays is access to the siloed user bases for people who try to express dissident opinions, not the access to the net as whole, even…
Also, you're decades out of date on shareholder capitalism. ESG is big now. Even the shareholders don't necessarily want to you to maximize profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't it, though? Nope. Do we elect the board? Do they charge mandatory taxes in the currency only they can emit and will they have an armed force arest you if you don't pay? > But this isn't really the case in the modern web because you often don't have alternatives. Facebook and Google really are a monopoly in the West and that's a problem with must deal with. Cloudflare, thankfully, is far from being a monopoly…
I have been waiting for someone to mention this board stuff. A question for you: If facebook opened up their board for votes by public, imposed mandatory taxes on Americans and had a police to control the population, would we still be living in a democracy?
I may be missing a trick here, but what - exactly - gives Cloudflare - a company that provides web services - the moral authority to flatly claim: "that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities." ... and use that as a defense for inaction? It's like saying "Oh, well I can't give the poor money, they might spend it on dr…
Look at the list in the beginning of the article that has clear criminal violations, human rights violations, the like. They comply with take-downs in that domain, as they should and are legally required.
Yet they go on to mention that the vast majority of the complaints they get has nothing to do with those, rather they are take-down requests for things the reporter considered "offensive".
There's no right to not be offended. Further, the bar for "harm" is so low that it's on the ground. You can't let Twitter rage mobs on either side of politics decide on who gets to use internet infrastructure.
This stance to preserve the freedom of expression, opinion and even the right to insult is not apolitical. It's classic progressive liberalism, one of the pillars of our society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. It's not that we value police procedure more than we value the life of the victim. We value rule of law and due process as a society more than any individual gap in applying justice in a given case. Yes, if we ignore procedure and loc…
> So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.
It's rather disappointing that Cloudflare's policy is to not host content that is "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", but they do not apply that same policy to content that they provide DDoS mitigation services for. I don't see why their policies sh…
They address this: > Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for silencing vulnerable groups, but are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing problematic content online. We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.