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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#911

Post by Mindwipe »

thegeekbin wrote: post #419
wbl wrote: post #145

Lots of ISPs have AUPs that would prohibit a site like KiwiFarms and the sky hasn't fallen. Why can't Cloudflare do the same?

It comes down to content moderation. If a company begins to moderate content that travels through its network, it can be held liable and forced to remove things that any entity or governmental body could disagree with. For example that means if the Republican Party was hosting on Cloudflare and the Democrat Party disagreed with the Republican Party, they could force Cloudflare to remove the Republican Party's website…

> It comes down to content moderation. If a company begins to moderate content that travels through its network, it can be held liable and forced to remove things that any entity or governmental body could disagree with.

Cloudflare already does this, especially to services involving sex workers.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#912

Post by DanBC »

_-david-_ wrote: post #675
ryneandal wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And each of those platforms you've mentioned have explicit rules AGAINST harassment, doxxing, swatting, and other reprehensible behavior KF engages in. Sure, it may be posted, but lots of it is removed as soon as it is identified and/or reported.

Kiwifarms has a policy against illegal behavior (which would include some harassment and swatting). I am not sure if doxing is illegal? Policies don't mean anything when a huge amount of it stays up and the platform does nothing about it. There are posts literally and explicitly calling for people to murder others on Twitter. The posts have been there for multiple years (at least the last time I checked). Twitter and…

> Kiwifarms has a policy against illegal behavior

wink wink

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#913

Post by origin_path »

nullifidian wrote: post #890
systemvoltage wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find this section peculiar. Why does the company have "values"? I though companies were supposed to be looking after the intrests of their shareholders, i.e., profit. Do the shareholders consent to the lost profit being donated to political motives? This broader trend of companies becoming political organizations is terrible, frankly. This ship has sailed since about 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen…

Bunch of this is a legal impossibility. Disparate impact jurisprudence prohibits competence based hiring. "No HR departments" increases your legal liability risks -- a company ought to have one to at least cover their asses by saying that "we followed precedents' prescribed procedures, but alas". "No woke HR training" is the same - it's literally a legal obligation, without which your liability increases by orders of…

Woke HR training is not a legal obligation, though woke activists would very much like to pretend it is.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#914

Post by wahnfrieden »

Chris2048 wrote: post #906
wahnfrieden wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 als…

This is in the context of being a targeted organisation, such as the BP.

pretty sus to tell dissidents they should all disarm to protect themselves

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#915

Post by solsane »

elefantastisch wrote: post #136
Borgz wrote: post #79

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.

I feel like this should be the end of the discussion. A crime against a criminal is still a crime. Furthermore, who decides who the ‘criminal’ is? A ‘tit for tat’ policy may leave progressive activists and whistleblowers vulnerable to DDoS.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#916

Post by solsane »

yarrel wrote: post #770
dannyw wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public library may not want to curate Neo-Nazi books, but the police should not refuse to protect a Neo-Nazi from murder.

Now do the scenario where the police help the Neo-Nazis commit the murders, but will not protect the library. Because that's CloudFlare.

I don’t follow this comparison. Seems like DDoS protection is a defensive measure.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#917

Post by philippejara »

viraptor wrote: post #794
philippejara wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point why bother with cloudflare? if you have a credible legal case to take down the hosting of the website you make a legal case in the place where it is being hosted and use that to get it down. I can't really see any reason for a court of law to force cloudflare to not service someone given that the obvious implications that the one asking for that to happen wants to commit a felony, or at the very least m…

Because the hosting company may be not bothered and actively supporting the extremist content. (guess if this applies in this case...)

The hosting company views are completely irrelevant once they receive a legal order to stop hosting something.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#918

Post by account42 »

Cr4shMyCar wrote: post #795
spencerchubb wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harassment is already a crime. No need for companies like cloudflare to implement their own bespoke judicial system

Selling drugs is already a crime, no need for eBay or Facebook to implement their own bespoke judicial system. Something being illegal doesn't mean people won't do it.

I agree, eBay and Facebook should not be policing drugs beyond what they are legally required.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#919

Post by nullifidian »

origin_path wrote: post #913
nullifidian wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bunch of this is a legal impossibility. Disparate impact jurisprudence prohibits competence based hiring. "No HR departments" increases your legal liability risks -- a company ought to have one to at least cover their asses by saying that "we followed precedents' prescribed procedures, but alas". "No woke HR training" is the same - it's literally a legal obligation, without which your liability increases by orders of…

Woke HR training is not a legal obligation, though woke activists would very much like to pretend it is.

Wokeness itself is not a legal obligation (at least for now, but with coming generational changes in the US justice system that could also change), but training is. Finding non-woke HR training firms is a significant challenge though. Recruiting qualified non-woke HR management employees isn't easy either.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#920

Post by bauruine »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #886
tibbydudeza wrote: post #628

Chloe Sagal seems to have had mental health issues - if not Kiwifarms then it would have been something else that trigged her suicide. It really baffles me when people are targeted by trolls - trolls have been around since the days of Fidonet and BBS - without strict moderation it is a wild west. Also the solution seems kind of obvious to me - just disconnect yourself - delete social media , curate your feeds and sto…

> Chloe Sagal seems to have had mental health issues - if not Kiwifarms then it would have been something else that trigged her suicide. That's a super fucked thing for you to armchair doctor.

If you look at what really happened saying "Kiwi Farms killed her" isn't exactly fair.

- The thread about her didn't have a post for 6 months before she killed herself

- Facebook locked her profile when she posted about suicide. Why is Kiwi Farms to blame for this?

- She was thrown out where she was living a few days prior because the people she was living with decided they could no longer take care of her

- She had severe mental health issues unrelated to her being harassed

- She threatened to kill herself after that and was taken into custody, spent 2 days in triage at a mental health facility but was never properly hospitalized and left

- She cited homelessness and mental health problems as reason for the suicide

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/06/woman_who_set_se...

Post reply on HN