Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#921

Post by ladyattis » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:03 PM UTC

turkeysandwich wrote: post #862

ladyattis wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're fine if I post your SSN on this site? And let's assume the mods also co-sign that decision in this hypothetical, so you're okay with your PII being out there for anyone (and I mean anyone) to see and use? You wouldn't even try to subpoena Y Combinator for my information on file such as my IP logs and email address (necessary for registration) to serve me notice? I seriously doubt that. I'm sure you would la…

> But it seems you're fine with Kiwi Farms literally posting SSNs, bank balances, passwords to accounts, and much more. Small correction, this doesn't happen on Kiwi Farms. Kiwi Farms is focused on discussing much more mundane, public drama. Just interactions between people, mostly on public social media like Twitter, Youtube and others. Things like hacking, private financial information, DDoSing, swatting, are all h…

Your correction is incorrect. People have shown forum posts by users posting passwords, bank balances, and SSNs. They called the SSNs 'Minecraft numbers' to try to skirt any moderation attempts, so don't try to sweep this stuff under the rug. Their users are doing this and their mods know it. They only delete such information an attempt to put a fig leaf on the matter. Too little, too late.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#922

Post by ladyattis » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:06 PM UTC

Cyberdog wrote: post #744

ladyattis wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You seem to think there's no left wing in America when self-avowed leftists if not socialists are the ones who have been doing this whole #DropKiwifarms campaign in the first place. Some are socialists, but in terms of actual politically power individuals? No. Seriously, no. There's no socialist or social democratic institution that has power in DC or even a state government within the United States. >If there's no…

Eh. You win, I guess. I've already argued too much about politics on the internet than I should have. Everyone just gets angry and nobody's mind changes. You have your perspective about reality, I guess, and I'll have mine.

>Eh. You win, I guess. I've already argued too much about politics on the internet than I should have. Everyone just gets angry and nobody's mind changes.

I'm not mad, I just don't buy your anecdotes as solid proof of some kind of Marxist vanguard dominating media, education, and the like. That kind of John Birch Society stuff isn't factual. And I speak as a former ditto head from the 1990s, even then I didn't buy the Bircher nonsense.

>You have your perspective about reality, I guess, and I'll have mine.

I'd have it no other way but I don't brook arguments that border on the conspiratorial, sorry.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#923

Post by ranger_danger » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:13 PM UTC

worldofmatthew wrote: post #209

elefantastisch wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

So sick of this argument. They clearly just stated that they believe everyone should have access to protection. This is like saying "walmart, known for supplying mass murderers with guns!"

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#924

Post by malfist » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:14 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #728

malfist wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that if cloudflare kicked a nazi off their services, that would murder them?

No. Clearly you're having trouble understanding basic logic so I'll spell it out for you: 1. Terrorism is not a judgment of the target but of the action. 2. The OP classified DDoS as terrorism. 3. DDoSing Nazis is thus terrorism. By parity of reasoning, I pointed out that murdering a Nazi is still murder, regardless of the fact that the target was a Nazi. The nature of the target is immaterial to the classification o…

> 2. The OP classified DDoS as terrorism.

This is begging the question.

DDoS is not terrorism. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Inconveniencing a people, by taking down a website is not violence or intimidation.

Without that tenant, everything you've argued on this thread is a moot point.

Keep in mind who you're defending here. The site in question doxxes trans people so they can be harassed and sent death threats. That IS terrorism.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#925

Post by ranger_danger » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:14 PM UTC

Akronymus wrote: post #908

yarrel wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwi Farms recently DDoSed a suicide prevention hotline. So you are factually wrong.

What? A quick search on the farms didn't turn anything up about that. Only thing I can find is the farm being ddosd rather than the other way around. And for that matter, a search through google and such didnt turn up anything either. And if its just "x says they did it" without ANY evidence, then how could I believe that?

It actually doesn't matter at all. They just proved that there ARE situations that a DDoS can endanger people's lives (including more we aren't even thinking about), whether or not KF is even related in this case.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#926

Post by ranger_danger » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

yarrel wrote: post #767

tauntz wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hosting and DDoS protection are different services. Think of them like a landlord (hosting) vs fire department (ddos) situation - one of them can morally refuse their services to people that they think are doing wrong/illegal/immoral things, the other one doesn't. Not that I agree or disagree with this argument - just wanted to point out what their reasoning seems to be.

They are both caching, which is hosting. We'll leave out that DDoS protection is a PII nightmare, and that CloudFlare is essentially spyware. For now. Their reasoning is the best that they could come up with under pressure. Which is to say - lol.

CloudFlare is no different than Amazon CloudFront, Akamai or many other CDN type providers. Where's the outrage for them? I don't understand all this hate directed at just one particular company that specifically acts fair to everyone.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#927

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #885

015a wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the point! CF sees this aspect of the policy as acting like a public utility. Is that so wrong? Isn't that better than the alternative? Maybe, if we lived in a world where the government provided CDNs and DDoS mitigation and DNS zone file hosting and resolution and such, then its a reasonable argument to say: We have an entity beholden to Higher Laws which we can hold responsible, and marginalized voices h…

> But that's the point! CF sees this aspect of the policy as acting like a public utility. Cool, but they're not.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#928

Post by ranger_danger » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #16

hammyhavoc wrote: post #3

If this is in response to Kiwi Farms, I would say this is very disappointing. Love CloudFlare, think they are amazingly innovative, huge amount of respect for the people who work there. I see where they're coming from, but I don't see how KF is defensible whilst 8chan et al aren't.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

We should be so glad that sites like KF can even exist, where free speech is not only practiced, but the owner of the site actually stands up for their users' rights and even goes to court to fight for them when people wrongly sue and try to take things down that is not the responsibility of KF to even be policing.

You may not like the content its users choose to post, but I for one am glad sites like it exist as it gives hope that the First Amendment continues to be respected and legally tested... otherwise I fear that censorship will keep creeping up until it has gone too far.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#929

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 2:03 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #427

weberer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. These people who want to revoke DDoS protection for groups they don't like are essentially promoting terrorism. Why else would they fight so hard to remove DDoS protection, if not because they simply want those attacks to succeed?

Wow. So de-platforming Nazis is terrorism now?

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#930

Post by phpisthebest » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 2:05 PM UTC

killyourcar wrote: post #856

marginalia_nu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really tricky situation. On the one hand, websites like KF and the like are utterly reprehensible. On the other hand, Cloudflare taking it upon themselves to police the Internet is a nightmare in its own, given their bot-prevention services are effectively mandatory in order to even keep any sort of larger interactive website running. What is permitted to say is something for the courts, not for the whims of p…

It's really not that tricky. Few sites are peers of 8chan, kiwi farms, and the daily Stormer. When you become their peer, you have a serious discussion about whether you want them as customers with several people in the company, and you can choose "no". They can absolutely drop kiwi farms and still be in the clear, ethically. It's not like kiwi farms is even remotely close to some sort of slippery slope. It's the god…

it is a slippery slope. 8Chan was banned for illegal content, Daily Stormer was banned for Direct Calls for racial violence

Kiwi Farms is being called for banning on the nebulous "harassment" charge, based on non-US Legal definition of the term Harassment.

if you can not see how this is a continuation of the slippery slope then I am not sure what you would need to be convienced