6 ms·

Cloudflare Pressured to Drop Kiwi Farms After Latest Doxing Effort

55 points by IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Is this like going after the frackers supplying natural gas to the power companies that heat the homes of nazis?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  No, it's like going after IG Farben for supplying Zyklon B.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Preventing ddos is like manufacturing Zyklon B?
    - viraptor 4y ago
      Cloudflare is not used to prevent ddos in this case, but to hide the identity and the actual hosting service of kf, so that they can't be pressured/sued. And apparently for legal defence since cloudflare was happy to proactively protect them in court.
- janef0421 4y ago
  No. Kiwifarms requires cloudflare DDoS protection to stay operational. Denying them that service would pose a serious issue to its continued existence, possibly leading to it going off the internet.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Have we really reached a point where DDoS mitigations are useless unless they're done by cloudflare and nobody else has a chance of keeping a site from being forced offline by these attacks? I'd like to think that cloudflare isn't the final word on who is able to maintain a web-presence, or at the very least that they have competitors capable of offering a sufficient (if unequal) level of protection, but I honestly don't know.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      There are other companies providing this service. It's not the ddos protection they're after though, but rather the identity / origin protection. Everyone else has been dropping them pretty quickly - only cloudflare is ok with using their lawyers to actively protect the attempted murders.
IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
How many articles, podcasts, tweets, and comment replies did it take to finally put a dent into the endless repetition of the myths about Section 230? Cloudfare is continuing to use the very same faulty logic: that, somehow, preventing the most egregious misuse of their service would create some sort of requirement to do so perfectly, in every case, or to assume liability for everything crossing their servers. There is no such mechanism in either law, logic, or morality. Morally, rescuing a drowning child does not create a requirement for you to rescue every person in danger of drowning, everywhere. Because that would obviously disincentivize anyone from ever helping, and it would also just be impossible to do. Legally, there just is no law or principle of that kind. The laws that exists, for specific domains, do the opposite: Good Samaritan Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law) protecting individuals rendering help, as in the drowning-child example, from any liability, including for failing in that very rescue effort, for whatever reason. More similar to the Cloudflare case, Section 230 does exactly the same, but for publishers on the web. As to logic: if you once jumped into the water and got that child out, just in time, people may indeed expect you to do it again, under similar or easier circumstances, because they remember that you are a good swimmer. But in the Cloudflare case, acting in the obvious case does not change anything, because there is absolutely no doubt that they have the ability to shut down any customer they do not want on their service. Doing so therefore does not give any (valid) extra ammunition to further requests to act.
_chendo_ 4y ago
A reminder that Cloudflare kicked off Switter, a social network for sex workers with zero notice, and zero evidence of any harms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16876040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16876040 https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudflare-sex-workers-banned https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudfla...
- perryizgr8 4y ago
  A reminder that Cloudflare is a private company. They can choose who to do business with. They are fully entitled to kick any entity off their service for any reason or no reason at all.
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    A reminder that private companies are not exempt from criticism merely because their actions are within the letter of the law.
    - perryizgr8 4y ago
      Criticism is detrimental to the originator if it is not valid. My reminder was pointing out the invalidity of the "criticism". It is not a criticism to point out totally normal behaviour of a company. It is like saying "American Airlines kicked out two people not following the crew's instructions from their flight, even though they had paid for tickets!". It's their company, their plane, their website, their platform. Obey the rules or GTFO.
      - remram 4y ago
        Let me get this right: private companies/citizens can drop business from anybody with zero notice and any amount of harm because "they're private", but private companies/citizens can't express criticism because harm? Do I get that right, is that your reasoning? Private entities you like can do anything and private entities you don't like can't do anything to the ones you like, because?
systemvoltage 4y ago
- m-p-3 4y ago
  They hide behind proxies, VPN, Tor. They obviously don't care about the harm they do to their victims, and the judicial system is mostly powerless to find, even less prosecutes these trolls online. This is simply a reaction to an extreme that obviously doesn't care about the law, combined with a judicial system that is way behind the times technologically.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Well, there are anti-terrorist task forces in various countries. FBI alone has stopped many threats and continue to do that quite effectively. Federal law enforcement can lawfully work with corporations. > This is simply a reaction to an extreme that obviously doesn't care about the law, combined with a judicial system that is way behind the times technologically. Seems naive and glib, there should be a higher bar for throwing the baby + bathwater, the entire justice system, that has served for over 245 years just fine.
    - m-p-3 4y ago
      And still, trolls are abusing law enforcement response against their own citizens by swatting them. Call me cynical, but the system is broken, and there's gotta be some pushback one way or the other.
      - s5300 4y ago
        KiwiFarms has been convicted of terrorism in New Zealand IIRC, & rightly banned. Is that good enough for you?
        m-p-3 4y ago
        And can by trivially bypassed using a VPN.
aaron695 4y ago
IntelMiner 4y ago
The person who runs Kiwifarms is deeply, deeply mentally sick. As are the users he's cultivated on that twisted ecochamber of hatred https://i.imgur.com/cpk8z8W.png https://i.imgur.com/cpk8z8W.png He posted to the forum decrying his users for immolating anyone they could possibly get their hands on. Talked about how they've been booted from hundreds of hosting providers over the years and how he's spent thousands of dollars keeping that hateful raft of shit afloat And then concludes by saying "we are in the right" The person who lead the charge to cause Byuu/Near, a person who spent over 20 years of their life on a Super Nintendo emulator to end their own life proudly proclaims they're "in the right" These people need to be sectioned
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wyoh 4y ago
  - danShumway 4y ago
    > this never happened One of Near's last public social messages directly calls out Kiwi Farms abuse as a cause of their suicide. https://nitter.42l.fr/near_koukai/status/1408940057235312640#m https://nitter.42l.fr/near_koukai/status/1408940057235312640... It is pure revisionist history to pretend otherwise. Edit: I just realized that the actual assertion here is apparently not just that Kiwi Farms didn't cause Near's death, but also that Near didn't actually die and is still alive today? Which is such a ludicrous claim to make that it's probably not worth dignifying it with a response.
    - ajvs 4y ago
      Looks like someone didn't read the link because that thread it's already acknowledged in it.
      - danShumway 4y ago

55 points by IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Is this like going after the frackers supplying natural gas to the power companies that heat the homes of nazis?

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
No, it's like going after IG Farben for supplying Zyklon B.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Preventing ddos is like manufacturing Zyklon B?
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Cloudflare is not used to prevent ddos in this case, but to hide the identity and the actual hosting service of kf, so that they can't be pressured/sued. And apparently for legal defence since cloudflare was happy to proactively protect them in court.
janef0421 4y ago
No. Kiwifarms requires cloudflare DDoS protection to stay operational. Denying them that service would pose a serious issue to its continued existence, possibly leading to it going off the internet.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Have we really reached a point where DDoS mitigations are useless unless they're done by cloudflare and nobody else has a chance of keeping a site from being forced offline by these attacks? I'd like to think that cloudflare isn't the final word on who is able to maintain a web-presence, or at the very least that they have competitors capable of offering a sufficient (if unequal) level of protection, but I honestly don't know.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    There are other companies providing this service. It's not the ddos protection they're after though, but rather the identity / origin protection. Everyone else has been dropping them pretty quickly - only cloudflare is ok with using their lawyers to actively protect the attempted murders.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

How many articles, podcasts, tweets, and comment replies did it take to finally put a dent into the endless repetition of the myths about Section 230? Cloudfare is continuing to use the very same faulty logic: that, somehow, preventing the most egregious misuse of their service would create some sort of requirement to do so perfectly, in every case, or to assume liability for everything crossing their servers. There is no such mechanism in either law, logic, or morality. Morally, rescuing a drowning child does not create a requirement for you to rescue every person in danger of drowning, everywhere. Because that would obviously disincentivize anyone from ever helping, and it would also just be impossible to do. Legally, there just is no law or principle of that kind. The laws that exists, for specific domains, do the opposite: Good Samaritan Laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law) protecting individuals rendering help, as in the drowning-child example, from any liability, including for failing in that very rescue effort, for whatever reason. More similar to the Cloudflare case, Section 230 does exactly the same, but for publishers on the web. As to logic: if you once jumped into the water and got that child out, just in time, people may indeed expect you to do it again, under similar or easier circumstances, because they remember that you are a good swimmer. But in the Cloudflare case, acting in the obvious case does not change anything, because there is absolutely no doubt that they have the ability to shut down any customer they do not want on their service. Doing so therefore does not give any (valid) extra ammunition to further requests to act.

_chendo_ 4y ago

A reminder that Cloudflare kicked off Switter, a social network for sex workers with zero notice, and zero evidence of any harms. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16876040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16876040 https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudflare-sex-workers-banned https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudfla...

perryizgr8 4y ago
A reminder that Cloudflare is a private company. They can choose who to do business with. They are fully entitled to kick any entity off their service for any reason or no reason at all.
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  A reminder that private companies are not exempt from criticism merely because their actions are within the letter of the law.
  - perryizgr8 4y ago
    Criticism is detrimental to the originator if it is not valid. My reminder was pointing out the invalidity of the "criticism". It is not a criticism to point out totally normal behaviour of a company. It is like saying "American Airlines kicked out two people not following the crew's instructions from their flight, even though they had paid for tickets!". It's their company, their plane, their website, their platform. Obey the rules or GTFO.
    - remram 4y ago
      Let me get this right: private companies/citizens can drop business from anybody with zero notice and any amount of harm because "they're private", but private companies/citizens can't express criticism because harm? Do I get that right, is that your reasoning? Private entities you like can do anything and private entities you don't like can't do anything to the ones you like, because?

systemvoltage 4y ago

m-p-3 4y ago
They hide behind proxies, VPN, Tor. They obviously don't care about the harm they do to their victims, and the judicial system is mostly powerless to find, even less prosecutes these trolls online. This is simply a reaction to an extreme that obviously doesn't care about the law, combined with a judicial system that is way behind the times technologically.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Well, there are anti-terrorist task forces in various countries. FBI alone has stopped many threats and continue to do that quite effectively. Federal law enforcement can lawfully work with corporations. > This is simply a reaction to an extreme that obviously doesn't care about the law, combined with a judicial system that is way behind the times technologically. Seems naive and glib, there should be a higher bar for throwing the baby + bathwater, the entire justice system, that has served for over 245 years just fine.
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    And still, trolls are abusing law enforcement response against their own citizens by swatting them. Call me cynical, but the system is broken, and there's gotta be some pushback one way or the other.
    - s5300 4y ago
      KiwiFarms has been convicted of terrorism in New Zealand IIRC, & rightly banned. Is that good enough for you?
      - m-p-3 4y ago
        And can by trivially bypassed using a VPN.

aaron695 4y ago

IntelMiner 4y ago

The person who runs Kiwifarms is deeply, deeply mentally sick. As are the users he's cultivated on that twisted ecochamber of hatred https://i.imgur.com/cpk8z8W.png https://i.imgur.com/cpk8z8W.png He posted to the forum decrying his users for immolating anyone they could possibly get their hands on. Talked about how they've been booted from hundreds of hosting providers over the years and how he's spent thousands of dollars keeping that hateful raft of shit afloat And then concludes by saying "we are in the right" The person who lead the charge to cause Byuu/Near, a person who spent over 20 years of their life on a Super Nintendo emulator to end their own life proudly proclaims they're "in the right" These people need to be sectioned

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wyoh 4y ago
- danShumway 4y ago
  > this never happened One of Near's last public social messages directly calls out Kiwi Farms abuse as a cause of their suicide. https://nitter.42l.fr/near_koukai/status/1408940057235312640#m https://nitter.42l.fr/near_koukai/status/1408940057235312640... It is pure revisionist history to pretend otherwise. Edit: I just realized that the actual assertion here is apparently not just that Kiwi Farms didn't cause Near's death, but also that Near didn't actually die and is still alive today? Which is such a ludicrous claim to make that it's probably not worth dignifying it with a response.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    Looks like someone didn't read the link because that thread it's already acknowledged in it.
    - danShumway 4y ago