Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#841

Post by wahnfrieden »

pvillano wrote: post #822
vorpalhex wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a right to speech, even speech that is not good. That applies to gay people at Stonewall and the KKK marching in DC equally. If you would restrict one then you restrict both. The freedom is absolute or it does not exist for anyone except the current favored group. It's like laws on the treatment of prisoners of war - we don't have those rules because we love our enemy, it's because we want our brothers t…

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excepti...

the legal defn isn’t really relevant. freedom has taken on new popular meanings in this culture war.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#842

Post by hotfix12 »

ignoramous wrote: post #729
at_a_remove wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, while they took down 8chan, they left up ISIS sites hosting ISIS-made videos of ISIS members burning people alive , popping off their heads with detcord, and the like. 8chan bad , ISIS ... well, not as bad? I will never stop reminding people that the CEO said he woke up in a bad mood one day and took down protections for one group ... but left murdersites alone. Can't be undone. Remember that whenever they…

> I will never stop reminding people that the CEO said he woke up in a bad mood one day and took down protections for one group ... but left murdersites alone. Can't be undone. Out of loop. What is this in reference to?

When they banned the Daily Stormer because the CEO overreacted to some news story.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#843

Post by wahnfrieden »

throwrqX wrote: post #776
wahnfrieden wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/23/21295432/police-bla... https://incite-national.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/TOOLK... etc

Key words in my post were in this particular case . Neither links talk about any similar cases regarding cisgender people and harassment either.

k

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#844

Post by stormbrew »

DoctorOW wrote: post #823
stormbrew wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that specific passage was in reference to KiwiFarm's paid plan. I didn't say it was? I don't see why the fact that cf is paying for their ddos protection instead of kf paying for it themselves is really relevant to the enablement of harm. Honestly that makes it even worse: in the other situation, cf is taking money from a bad actor and funneling it towards a good one (both allegedly). Here cf is payin…

> in my perfect world (...) cf isn't even in a position to arbitrate speech This is literally the only thing I'm advocating for. I'm a trans woman that openly speaks about my and others' experiences. Trust me when I say, codified systems for reporting abuse are themselves the target of the same abuse. I've gotten the "Sorry, we're leaving this up" from reporting anti trans content on Facebook. I've had comments sayin…

> Trust me

Trust me when I say I'm aware and that I have very specific reasons to feel the way I do.

But the thing is that cf absolutely is profiting off this. They provide this service to make themselves indispensable, to make themselves an attractive product for people to use. By holding the line here, they will drum up plenty of business that's really happy about their stance, even if it only toes the line kf crosses with impunity.

The goal of the campaign against cf (and anyone else providing them services) is to make it less profitable to provide services to kf. This is the only tool left in the capitalist world we live in.

What cf is doing here is less like advocating for free speech and more like the social version of providing a free open smtp relay. They obscure the true cost of doing something reprehensible.

And they do it at great financial expense completely by choice, because it likely drums up more business for them than it costs.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#845

Post by wahnfrieden »

Chris2048 wrote: post #840
pjc50 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but as soon as it became a thing it would be raided by the police, as per what happened to the Black Panthers.

I'd argue that while initially having more guns causes the probability of being raided to go up, with enough guns that starts to fall. The police/FBI raid you because you are a threat to them. Become enough of a threat, and they will think twice about raiding you. Of course you won't win against the military, but that becomes an issue of popular support - the BP didn't have enough political power at the time. I expec…

gun ownership itself doesn’t make an organization a threat to the police or fbi as is utterly evident. nor does the possession of guns itself cause organized criminalized activity to be treated with severe force, as is also utterly evident

also bear in mind the military doesn’t operate with nearly as much ease on america’s own population, when you’re comparing pig threat to movements or peoples in the US. there’s also your neighbor to worry about

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#846

Post by wahnfrieden »

sophacles wrote: post #716
wahnfrieden wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policies differ chiefly because of massive difference in revenue

More realistically the policies probably differ because they are different technologies and different use cases with different legal requirements.

simply differing legal reqs and use cases are as unlikely an explanation as it is for why cf sets policy and behaves so much apart from rest of industry peers repeatedly who are under the same or similar constraints

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#847

Post by elefantastisch »

groby_b wrote: post #803
elefantastisch wrote: post #586

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 If Cloudflare would like to be nationalized, I'm happy to have a discussion of applying government rules to them. Until then, they're a private company, "due process" does really not apply. If we think that protecting sites from DDoS is a public good (and I think that's a good question), that is a task that should fall to government entities.

The point is that Cloudflare thinks due process, not DDoS, is the right way to bring down horrible websites. Thus they protect them until such due process happens.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#848

Post by squeaky-clean »

yanderekko wrote: post #420
squeaky-clean wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter mobs can drive people to get fired, websites or companies to shut down... But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing. People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.

>But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing. Are you actually implying that Twitter mobs haven't done all of these things too? This is obviously wrong.

Twitter doesn't exist solely to harass and cyberstalk people. KiwiFarms does. That's the difference.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#849

Post by HereIGoAgain »

wussboy wrote: post #192
tekla wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I support free speech except the things that I don't like"

Free speech is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw civil society away because it might infringe on free speech.

Civil society is a good, but it is not the highest good. We do not need to throw free speech away because it might infringe on civility. Especially when it's out and away from public and attention minding it's own business.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#850

Post by squeaky-clean »

yanderekko wrote: post #681
schleck8 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should keep up Kiwifarms because something similar has happened on Twitter? Is that the logic? Instead of removing one of the evils let's keep them both up because fairness or something like that?

The logic is that we shouldn't use some sort of "one drop" thinking to characterize a platform as broadly evil based on its worst users.

> to characterize a platform as broadly evil based on its worst users.

It's literally the purpose of KiwiFarms. It's all their users. Any forum board not dedicated to "lolcows" (what they call the people the harass, because they can be "milked for laughs") is in the off-topic section.

I don't think you're aware of what KF is. It's not just a free-form social platform like Twitter. It's specifically for documenting, and scheming to harass lolcows.

Post reply on HN