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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#961

Post by groby_b »

elefantastisch wrote: post #847
groby_b wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not the point you originally made. Moving the goalpost.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#962

Post by hooverd »

Banana699 wrote: post #959
killyourcar wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gender neutral restroom, but our office has none. ... Political? I use they/them pronouns, and I ask politely for others to use them... Political? Cause I've been told that being a queer person is political. I don't think it is, it's just... Who I am. People who say no politics at work generally have never had to think about how some identities are perceived as innately political.

>I use a gender neutral restroom, but our office has none. ... Political? Yes, don't use the bathroom at office. >I use they/them pronouns, and I ask politely for others to use them... Political? Absolutely, it is the very visible agenda of a very loud political machine. It's nothing but political. It can be an example of "political, n." in a dictionary. That said, you don't need to be fired over everything political…

> no identity is political unless you make it

> 'using they/them pronouns' is political

is the implication here that normative is non-political and non-normative is political? another example, would it be political to bring your non-heterosexual spouse to a company function where other employees may bring their spouses?

*fixed formatting

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#963

Post by Banana699 »

hooverd wrote: post #962
Banana699 wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I use a gender neutral restroom, but our office has none. ... Political? Yes, don't use the bathroom at office. >I use they/them pronouns, and I ask politely for others to use them... Political? Absolutely, it is the very visible agenda of a very loud political machine. It's nothing but political. It can be an example of "political, n." in a dictionary. That said, you don't need to be fired over everything political…

> no identity is political unless you make it > 'using they/them pronouns' is political is the implication here that normative is non-political and non-normative is political? another example, would it be political to bring your non-heterosexual spouse to a company function where other employees may bring their spouses? *fixed formatting

Not necessarily, there are plenty of non-normalized things that are not political. Like I said, being political is first and foremost an attitude, a very specific attitude that nothing matters except your very own pet issue, and the willingness to let everything and everyone burn in order to push your view or just flaunt it.

>would it be political to bring your non-heterosexual spouse to a company function where other employees may bring their spouses?

Depends on you and your coworker attitudes, but generally no. A function like this would probably be very laid back and casual, it's not even "work" by a strict definition, so I can't think of a way your non hetero spouse would be a problem. Company asked for people to bring spouses, company got people who brought spouses. If they wanted Man/w/Woman only, they should have asked for it, subtly or explicitly.

Of course, the kind of people I have in mind can still ruin this, just like they ruin everything. They can always come dressed in a pride flag and act insufferable. And that's exactly my point, being political is, as I think of it, a personality. You can be the most boring normative person in existence and still be political, you can be the most radical and norms-challenging person in existence and still shut up and fix the damn bug because nobody got the time and patience to fight your moral crusades.

Even a few "slips" here and there could be forgiven, we all get political if somebody pushes our buttons enough after all. But repeated, deliberate attempts to be pushy and transgressive and an oppressed victim? That's just something else. It can always be recognized.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#964

Post by strangeattractr »

phillipcarter wrote: post #613
DoctorOW wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely struggling to see how this answers my question. You continually discuss laws when I made it abundantly clear that because laws are, as you put it, Calvinball they are irrelevant to what should be done. > CloudFlare (a) is in a position to stop digital protection of Kiwi Farms So too is Illinois to stop police protection of Nazi activists. I ask again, why SHOULD one organization protect speech and anoth…

I think you're losing the plot here. Nothing has any moral obligation to do anything in this universe. Morality doesn't exist. And we're all just making it up as we go. Now that we've established that nothing matters, the reason is because a lot of us feel that Cloudflare should do something about it.

This is pathetic. If this is your rationale for why KF should be denied DDoS protection then I hope you fail. Nothing matters so do what we want. If nothing matters why does it matter if your favourite streamer is killed by a SWAT team, I'm sure a lot of people want it to happen too.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#965

Post by throwaway234939 »

NoraCodes wrote: post #938
strangeattractr wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones does it violate specifically?

I suggest you consult some of the readily available news coverage on the topic.

The problem here is that Switter is an Australian company. What justification did Cloudflare have in applying United States law to them?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#966

Post by joepie91_ »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #475
Borgz wrote: post #62

I don't understand why Cloudflare believes it is their responsibility to protect content that they admit to finding morally reprehensible when they are under no moral or legal obligation to do so. It seems that Cloudflare believes that they are the only ones who can protect the websites hosting this content from being DDoS'd out of existence, and thus they are protecting their right to freedom of speech. But the owne…

I feel like you missed the core points of this post. - Precedent from decisions on The Daily Stormer and 8chan was used to pressure Cloudflare to deplatform human rights organizations by authoritarian governments. Refusing to deplatform isn't about protecting Kiwifarms, but protecting other groups in a global environment where they face legal and social pressure on differing and conflicting views. A hands-off policy…

> Precedent from decisions on The Daily Stormer and 8chan was used to pressure Cloudflare to deplatform human rights organizations by authoritarian governments. Refusing to deplatform isn't about protecting Kiwifarms, but protecting other groups in a global environment where they face legal and social pressure on differing and conflicting views. A hands-off policy on moderating the content of their customers removes the possibility of using deplatforming to suppress human rights.

Except this is a bullshit excuse, because a) you can just tell those authoritarian governments "no", and b) they have been removing customers like sex workers for many years already, this is not some novel change. The only change is that it affects literal fascists now.

"Banning nazis means we also have to ban human rights organizations" is some grade-A spin doctor bullshit, and I would expect better from people here than to fall for that.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#967

Post by joepie91_ »

skrebbel wrote: post #598
creeble wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe this site will help: ddosforhire.net They're a lovely recommendation/review site that lists a few dozen DDoS-for-hire sites. Take a random look at who hosts the individual sites' DNS. Their business is fundamentally a shake-down racket, disguised as a free-speech defender.

Wait, you’re suggesting they had board room discussions where they consciously, actively chose to protect and encourage ddos-for-hire sites because the threat of ddos attacks helps keep cloudflare in business?

I don't know whether they did, but it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented in the DDoS mitigation industry.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#968

Post by NoraCodes »

throwaway234939 wrote: post #965
NoraCodes wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you consult some of the readily available news coverage on the topic.

The problem here is that Switter is an Australian company. What justification did Cloudflare have in applying United States law to them?

That's a good point, although I imagine that the actual justification is less to do with Switter's legal exposure than Cloudflare's.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#969

Post by strangeattractr »

NoraCodes wrote: post #938
strangeattractr wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones does it violate specifically?

I suggest you consult some of the readily available news coverage on the topic.

I have been reading news but I am yet to see a law broken by the website, I've seen it claimed but yet to see anything conclusive. I thought asking someone making the claim might be able to provide some evidence. I guess not.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#970

Post by killyourcar »

MockObject wrote: post #943
killyourcar wrote: post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwi Farms has killed and swatted people and had resulted in many direct threats of violence to individuals. It's not really a slippery slope at all. All three sites are way, way beyond the pale. Calling it harassment is like calling the moon a "space rock" - technically true I guess, but missing the magnitude.

As someone who fears and despises Kiwi Farms, I would be dishonest if I didn't recognize the slippery slope certainty that the bar of acceptability would decrease over the next few years.

You realize the fallacy here, right? Terminating commercial agreements with three origins of stochastic terrorism is not some ratchet towards new speak. It's just three cases where Cloudflare decided that sheltering terrorism wasn't in their best interest.
Post reply on HN