3 ms·
The implication is that Keffals and friends will DDoS the site out of existence, as they have apparently tried to do numerous times. This is of course criminal
by deepdriver 4y ago
The implication is that Keffals and friends will DDoS the site out of existence, as they have apparently tried to do numerous times. This is of course criminal but goes unmentioned.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoRequests made as part of a ddos are as free as any other form of speech. A lot of people don't like to admit it, but it's true.
- psyc 4y agoIs it? I'm one of those free speech people, I think, but I do recognize that some 'speech' is harassment when combined with action. Not because of the content, but because you're intending to disrupt somebody, such as following them around all day and yelling. DDoS seems like that. Doesn't it? I mean you're not even saying anything. It's like saying throwing rocks at a window is speech. "What? I'm just trying to say I don't like you. Speech!"
- kelseyfrog 4y agoAs an absolutist, this line of thinking just doesn't have a stopping point. Speech acts are inherently violent. There is no line to draw.
- HereIGoAgain 4y agoYeah, i'm guessing you have no idea what violence actually means.. It must be pretty privileged to be able to hold such a view of things.
- _9xrb 4y agoAbsolutely wrong, DDoS attacks are illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, section 1030(a)(5): https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46536.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46536.pdf
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThere's a lot of things we should be able to say but can't. Confusing what we can speak and should be able to speak is an error in thinking.
- sascha_sl 4y agoIt's not like the IP range of the origin servers isn't known. It's more that Cloudflare is the one thing that makes the site financially viable.