3 ms·

That’s a lot of words to say they’re not dropping Kiwi Farms. In spite of the fact that I think they plainly meet this condition for removal: > Is otherwise il

That’s a lot of words to say they’re not dropping Kiwi Farms. In spite of the fact that I think they plainly meet this condition for removal: > Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public.

almost_usual 4y ago
That was under “Hosting Products”, KW probably falls under “Security Services”. > Hosting products are those products where Cloudflare is the ultimate host of the content. This is different from products where we are merely providing security or temporary caching services and the content is hosted elsewhere
- lucakiebel 4y ago
  Yep, the passage would only apply if kf was run on cloudflare pages, or hosted images on cf imgs.
- partdavid 4y ago
  Which is the most frustrating thing about this document, because CloudFlare is ostensibly explaining why their AUP for hosting services is different from their AUP for security services; but instead of talking about the points of their AUP, they talk about how they don't want to terminate security services just because they feel the content is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". They are adopting the same strawman that critics of "cancel culture" believe exists: they are answering the question of "Why don't you cancel security services to people whose content is 'immoral or disgusting' or 'reprehensible'?" But that's not the relevant question. One presumes Kiwi Farms would violate CloudFlare's Hosting AUP not because they're "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible" either (because those aren't stated violations of the hosting AUP) but because it "Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public." So the question they should be answering, for each of the AUP violations they prohibit in their Hosting AUP, is why they allow these activities for services protected by their security services: * Do you, or why do you allow security service subscribers to distribute material that violates intellectual property rights? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to publish defamatory content? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute malware and control botnets? And if it turns out you don't allow them to do that, then why would you make a special exception for the last plank of your hosting AUP: * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute content that is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public? Those are the activities in question, not whether something is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". So why the misdirection? Why not answer why you think it's important to provide security services specifically to people that incites harassment to people? In my opinion, it's because they are overcorrecting and actually favoring groups like Kiwi Farms exactly because they're repugnant and reprehensible, and giving them a special bye that they wouldn't to, say, a revenge porn site. And that's participating and aiding in the targeting of Kiwi Farms' victims.
- shadowfacts 4y ago
  It's an artificial distinction, and I reject it. They know inciting violence is wrong, but they argue that providing services to people who do so is okay because they have a higher purpose of preventing cyberattacks. I think that's absurd.
hadrien01 4y ago
I see more that as a consequence of a failure of the US to legislate hate speech. Cloudflare, as a private company, doesn't want to police hate speech (which I fully understand and support, personally). In my country, France, this website is simply illegal. It would be prosecuted, and only then the hosting company (such as Cloudflare) would have to shut down the website.
- JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
  This is a great point. Regardless of how one may feel about hate speech laws, it is disturbing that a large percentage of citizens believe that Washington D.C. is completely impotent. People have given up on the idea of their government helping, to the point where it's not even brought up as a possibility.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > I see more that as a consequence of a failure of the US to legislate hate speech. What’s considered “hate speech” is completely arbitrary and liable to change depending on who is in power. There’s untold “hate speech” against Christians, straight white males, wealthy people etc - where does it stop and why is criticizing one group of people “hate speech” and another not?

almost_usual 4y ago

That was under “Hosting Products”, KW probably falls under “Security Services”. > Hosting products are those products where Cloudflare is the ultimate host of the content. This is different from products where we are merely providing security or temporary caching services and the content is hosted elsewhere

lucakiebel 4y ago
Yep, the passage would only apply if kf was run on cloudflare pages, or hosted images on cf imgs.
partdavid 4y ago
Which is the most frustrating thing about this document, because CloudFlare is ostensibly explaining why their AUP for hosting services is different from their AUP for security services; but instead of talking about the points of their AUP, they talk about how they don't want to terminate security services just because they feel the content is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". They are adopting the same strawman that critics of "cancel culture" believe exists: they are answering the question of "Why don't you cancel security services to people whose content is 'immoral or disgusting' or 'reprehensible'?" But that's not the relevant question. One presumes Kiwi Farms would violate CloudFlare's Hosting AUP not because they're "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible" either (because those aren't stated violations of the hosting AUP) but because it "Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public." So the question they should be answering, for each of the AUP violations they prohibit in their Hosting AUP, is why they allow these activities for services protected by their security services: * Do you, or why do you allow security service subscribers to distribute material that violates intellectual property rights? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to publish defamatory content? * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute malware and control botnets? And if it turns out you don't allow them to do that, then why would you make a special exception for the last plank of your hosting AUP: * Do you, or why do you protect security service subscribers' ability to distribute content that is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public? Those are the activities in question, not whether something is "immoral or disgusting" or "reprehensible". So why the misdirection? Why not answer why you think it's important to provide security services specifically to people that incites harassment to people? In my opinion, it's because they are overcorrecting and actually favoring groups like Kiwi Farms exactly because they're repugnant and reprehensible, and giving them a special bye that they wouldn't to, say, a revenge porn site. And that's participating and aiding in the targeting of Kiwi Farms' victims.
shadowfacts 4y ago
It's an artificial distinction, and I reject it. They know inciting violence is wrong, but they argue that providing services to people who do so is okay because they have a higher purpose of preventing cyberattacks. I think that's absurd.

hadrien01 4y ago

I see more that as a consequence of a failure of the US to legislate hate speech. Cloudflare, as a private company, doesn't want to police hate speech (which I fully understand and support, personally). In my country, France, this website is simply illegal. It would be prosecuted, and only then the hosting company (such as Cloudflare) would have to shut down the website.

JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
This is a great point. Regardless of how one may feel about hate speech laws, it is disturbing that a large percentage of citizens believe that Washington D.C. is completely impotent. People have given up on the idea of their government helping, to the point where it's not even brought up as a possibility.
nemo44x 4y ago
> I see more that as a consequence of a failure of the US to legislate hate speech. What’s considered “hate speech” is completely arbitrary and liable to change depending on who is in power. There’s untold “hate speech” against Christians, straight white males, wealthy people etc - where does it stop and why is criticizing one group of people “hate speech” and another not?