5 ms·

Cloudflare Tries to Ignore the World

29 points by greyface- 4y ago

rvz 4y ago
All these Cloudflare articles and pieces are a waste of time and Cloudflare will not do anything especially when they have IPO’d on the public markets. Given that Cloudflare, has not pulled out of Russia and refused to deplatform them even at the request of the Ukrainian government, why would they do anything with this minor problem? Instead go and talk to ICANN or RIPE about deplaforming Cloudflare since they won’t do anything. I’m sure the answer is also an absolute: No.
georgia_peach 4y ago
Good. A utility shouldn't be in the thought-policing business. If something illegal is going on, that's what law enforcement is for.
- viraptor 4y ago
  They are doing policing though, just the other way. Cloudflare successfully blocked taking the harassers to trial. Their lawyers blocked engagement of law enforcement against the right person in the first place.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    > successfully blocked taking the harassers to trial Source please. They are still a US company, and must comply with all lawful requests.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 + context before/after in the thread. You'll find the link to the case documents there as well.
      - georgia_peach 4y ago
        Law enforcement blew him off. That's a civil suit. Filing a motion to quash on a subpoena is within their legal rights. The FBI won't do its job, so cloudflare should do it for them?
  - unmole 4y ago
    This makes no sense whatsoever. Cloudflate doesn't control the legal system.
0xChain 4y ago
The way that Cloudflare works, it likely provides an ability to exfil and track active visitors to the site for three-letter agencies. Forcing Cloudflare to drop them might push them to use non-US services like what happened with 8chan and might not be the best move. Either way, these sites that host ilk always find an anti-DDoS provider >:(
- josephcsible 4y ago
  You're upset that people who aren't doing anything illegal, but that you disagree with, are allowed to have free speech and privacy too?
  - 0xChain 4y ago
    No? I’m saying it’s better for them to stick with Cloudflare for those reasons including government agencies being able to better monitor them for illegal content, despite my personal dislike of that doxxing site.
londons_explore 4y ago
Every ISP could also block these sites... Yet few do....
- moizici 4y ago
  These sites should be blocked from the source, not from the ISP.
  - mritzmann 4y ago
    Now the question is: Is Cloudflare a source? Probably not from a hosting point of view. From a network point of view, however, it is, as Cloudflare acts as a proxy and is therefore directly involved in delivering the website.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Just like with the other post about cloudflare providing service for a racist website, no site should be blocked for content only for crimes and that should be the job of law enforcement and not ISPs. When companies play internet police we all suffer. Taking down a site filled with racists isn't going to suddenly make all of those people posting there not-racist. Having them right out in the open lets us know who they are and what they're up to. With the site up law enforcement can keep an eye on it, and so can researchers and other people concerned with fighting racism. I really can't understand why everyone's first reaction to seeing something they don't like is to sweep it under the rug. You can't fight something if you aren't allowed to see it, and the things you can't see in the shadows are just going to blindside you. We should work to keep evil in the sunlight so that everyone knows exactly what it is, and where it's spreading. People who want to force sites offline for "hate speech" aren't fighting hate, they're only hindering our ability to fight it.
  - a_shovel 4y ago
    > Having them right out in the open lets us know who they are and what they're up to. It also lets them communicate far more easily, facilitate far more harm than they would otherwise be capable of, and recruit new racists as easily as sending a link. Breaking up communities like this is always a positive. It pops their bubble and forces many of them to see the wider world. The community will reform elsewhere, but it will be smaller, weaker, less capable of harm. Also, racists and transphobes are not going to blindside you. They are very open about what they want and what they plan to do, and they want you to know about it. Consider that not everyone wants to know exactly who they're targeting today.
nitwit005 4y ago
There's no incentive to respond to this sort of thing. If Cloudflare changes their policy, they'll just start publishing the other set of articles, claiming they're an unjust or unfair censor.
- a_shovel 4y ago
  The incentive for dropping a stalking and harassment site from their service is the opportunity to stop providing the services a stalking and harassment site needs to function. Most humans have a sense of morality that influences their actions, which would make this opportunity highly appealing.
- viraptor 4y ago
  They have multiple incentives: (ignoring the main "not being shitty people" incentive) - if they get investigated in the future in connection with some crime, they can't claim they weren't aware people use their service explicitly to protect illegal behaviour - they likely don't get as much money from KF as they lose in both other customers leaving and bad PR - many tech people will actively advertise against using them and will never consider working for them - by protecting KF, they invite more sites like that - and you really don't want to be known as "that service provider where you can go when nobody else wants anything to do with you" - the backlash is pretty established now, you really don't want comments on your feature announcements to start with "have you got a feature to turn off the murders yet?"
sennight 4y ago
dikaio 4y ago
Personally, I like Cloudflares stance on this. With so many big tech companies censoring individuals and companies it’s good to see companies like Cloudflare do the opposite and let legal system do what it’s there to do if needed.

29 points by greyface- 4y ago

rvz 4y ago

All these Cloudflare articles and pieces are a waste of time and Cloudflare will not do anything especially when they have IPO’d on the public markets. Given that Cloudflare, has not pulled out of Russia and refused to deplatform them even at the request of the Ukrainian government, why would they do anything with this minor problem? Instead go and talk to ICANN or RIPE about deplaforming Cloudflare since they won’t do anything. I’m sure the answer is also an absolute: No.

georgia_peach 4y ago

Good. A utility shouldn't be in the thought-policing business. If something illegal is going on, that's what law enforcement is for.

viraptor 4y ago
They are doing policing though, just the other way. Cloudflare successfully blocked taking the harassers to trial. Their lawyers blocked engagement of law enforcement against the right person in the first place.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  > successfully blocked taking the harassers to trial Source please. They are still a US company, and must comply with all lawful requests.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1485731108822077443 + context before/after in the thread. You'll find the link to the case documents there as well.
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      Law enforcement blew him off. That's a civil suit. Filing a motion to quash on a subpoena is within their legal rights. The FBI won't do its job, so cloudflare should do it for them?
- unmole 4y ago
  This makes no sense whatsoever. Cloudflate doesn't control the legal system.

0xChain 4y ago

The way that Cloudflare works, it likely provides an ability to exfil and track active visitors to the site for three-letter agencies. Forcing Cloudflare to drop them might push them to use non-US services like what happened with 8chan and might not be the best move. Either way, these sites that host ilk always find an anti-DDoS provider >:(

josephcsible 4y ago
You're upset that people who aren't doing anything illegal, but that you disagree with, are allowed to have free speech and privacy too?
- 0xChain 4y ago
  No? I’m saying it’s better for them to stick with Cloudflare for those reasons including government agencies being able to better monitor them for illegal content, despite my personal dislike of that doxxing site.

londons_explore 4y ago

Every ISP could also block these sites... Yet few do....

moizici 4y ago
These sites should be blocked from the source, not from the ISP.
- mritzmann 4y ago
  Now the question is: Is Cloudflare a source? Probably not from a hosting point of view. From a network point of view, however, it is, as Cloudflare acts as a proxy and is therefore directly involved in delivering the website.
autoexec 4y ago
Just like with the other post about cloudflare providing service for a racist website, no site should be blocked for content only for crimes and that should be the job of law enforcement and not ISPs. When companies play internet police we all suffer. Taking down a site filled with racists isn't going to suddenly make all of those people posting there not-racist. Having them right out in the open lets us know who they are and what they're up to. With the site up law enforcement can keep an eye on it, and so can researchers and other people concerned with fighting racism. I really can't understand why everyone's first reaction to seeing something they don't like is to sweep it under the rug. You can't fight something if you aren't allowed to see it, and the things you can't see in the shadows are just going to blindside you. We should work to keep evil in the sunlight so that everyone knows exactly what it is, and where it's spreading. People who want to force sites offline for "hate speech" aren't fighting hate, they're only hindering our ability to fight it.
- a_shovel 4y ago
  > Having them right out in the open lets us know who they are and what they're up to. It also lets them communicate far more easily, facilitate far more harm than they would otherwise be capable of, and recruit new racists as easily as sending a link. Breaking up communities like this is always a positive. It pops their bubble and forces many of them to see the wider world. The community will reform elsewhere, but it will be smaller, weaker, less capable of harm. Also, racists and transphobes are not going to blindside you. They are very open about what they want and what they plan to do, and they want you to know about it. Consider that not everyone wants to know exactly who they're targeting today.

nitwit005 4y ago

There's no incentive to respond to this sort of thing. If Cloudflare changes their policy, they'll just start publishing the other set of articles, claiming they're an unjust or unfair censor.

a_shovel 4y ago
The incentive for dropping a stalking and harassment site from their service is the opportunity to stop providing the services a stalking and harassment site needs to function. Most humans have a sense of morality that influences their actions, which would make this opportunity highly appealing.
viraptor 4y ago
They have multiple incentives: (ignoring the main "not being shitty people" incentive) - if they get investigated in the future in connection with some crime, they can't claim they weren't aware people use their service explicitly to protect illegal behaviour - they likely don't get as much money from KF as they lose in both other customers leaving and bad PR - many tech people will actively advertise against using them and will never consider working for them - by protecting KF, they invite more sites like that - and you really don't want to be known as "that service provider where you can go when nobody else wants anything to do with you" - the backlash is pretty established now, you really don't want comments on your feature announcements to start with "have you got a feature to turn off the murders yet?"

sennight 4y ago

dikaio 4y ago

Personally, I like Cloudflares stance on this. With so many big tech companies censoring individuals and companies it’s good to see companies like Cloudflare do the opposite and let legal system do what it’s there to do if needed.