4 ms·

I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people, preferably before they inevitably bully their victim

I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people, preferably before they inevitably bully their victims into suicide.

pseudalopex 4y ago
I'm not sure hosting something and ensuring it's accessible are different really. But the Cloudflare CEO is. And they don't host Kiwi Farms. Or do they? The CEO said CDN isn't hosting. But it fits the common definition.
- howdyfolks 4y ago
  I see. So maybe we should go after the ISPs transmitting the information too?
  - killyourcar 4y ago
    There's a discussion that could be had about whether it's appropriate for ISPs to block sites that are strongly associated with terrorism. I don't think that discussion can reasonably happen on this forum, but I think there are interesting philosophical positions that are valid that we should put against one another.
mjr00 4y ago
Guess what? They do. FTA: > Our decision to disable access to content in hosting products fundamentally results in that content being taken offline, at least until it is republished elsewhere. Hosting products are subject to our Acceptable Hosting Policy. Under that policy, for these products, we may remove or disable access to content that we believe: [...] 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.
- Borgz 4y ago
  This policy seems to only apply to content that they host. It appears that they don't intend to apply this policy to websites that they are only providing DDoS mitigation to, such as KiwiFarms. Whether Cloudflare is hosting the content or mitigating DDoS attacks against it, they bear some responsibility for the content being accessible. I see no good reason for them to have different policies between their hosting and DDoS mitigation services if they actually care about not propagating the content they refuse to host.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    > I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people > This policy seems to only apply to content that they host. Yes, which is exactly what the parent commenter was saying.
    - chc 4y ago
      - mjr00 4y ago
        Words have meaning. If you want to understand the difference between hosting and providing security services, here's a good article: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies-and-approach/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies-and-a...
- nightpool 4y ago
  The article says that providing CDN and DDOS protection services for KiwiFarms doesn't constitute hosting. The GP commenter clearly disagrees. I'll be honest: it really does seem like a distinction without a difference to me. If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Kiwifarms is doing a great deal of harm to the world by being online. At the end of the day, Cloudflare has a moral responsibility to—at the very least—stop contributing their security and networking resources to the cause of "Keep Kiwifarms online".
subsistence234 4y ago
throwawayacc2 4y ago
DoctorOW 4y ago
The whole point of my comment is that I don't think it is easy. It'd be great, but it certainly isn't easy. If they get rid of Kiwi Farms, ultimately it's not going to fix the problem. They're going to find a new, harder to harass vendor for CDN. Cloudflare's detractors are going to find a new website to talk about. If you're talking about all websites that do this kind of thing, I have my doubts about how this would look in practice. Take down websites that use hate speech? Work to debunk hateful myths would likely get caught in that. Suspend websites that get X number of reports? Congrats, you've given botnets a far more effective tool for DDOS. Don't suspend those websites until a human analyzes them? That'd be ideal, although it seems like that's the system they have. Those humans appear to be instructed to only intervene when Cloudflare itself is the one causing harm. Kiwi Farms is hosted elsewhere using Cloudflare as a CDN.
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  > They're going to find a new, harder to harass vendor for CDN. This is a good thing. It raises the barrier of entry to do what they want to do. They will likely provide a worse service as well.
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    > It raises the barrier of entry to do what they want to do. How so?
    - killyourcar 4y ago
      Any other CDN that will host then will not be as smooth and as capable and as well advertised as Cloudflare. It will be harder to get protection, so fewer sites will be able to succeed.

I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people, preferably before they inevitably bully their victims into suicide.

pseudalopex 4y ago

I'm not sure hosting something and ensuring it's accessible are different really. But the Cloudflare CEO is. And they don't host Kiwi Farms. Or do they? The CEO said CDN isn't hosting. But it fits the common definition.

howdyfolks 4y ago
I see. So maybe we should go after the ISPs transmitting the information too?
- killyourcar 4y ago
  There's a discussion that could be had about whether it's appropriate for ISPs to block sites that are strongly associated with terrorism. I don't think that discussion can reasonably happen on this forum, but I think there are interesting philosophical positions that are valid that we should put against one another.

mjr00 4y ago

Guess what? They do. FTA: > Our decision to disable access to content in hosting products fundamentally results in that content being taken offline, at least until it is republished elsewhere. Hosting products are subject to our Acceptable Hosting Policy. Under that policy, for these products, we may remove or disable access to content that we believe: [...] 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.

Borgz 4y ago
This policy seems to only apply to content that they host. It appears that they don't intend to apply this policy to websites that they are only providing DDoS mitigation to, such as KiwiFarms. Whether Cloudflare is hosting the content or mitigating DDoS attacks against it, they bear some responsibility for the content being accessible. I see no good reason for them to have different policies between their hosting and DDoS mitigation services if they actually care about not propagating the content they refuse to host.
- mjr00 4y ago
  > I think one easy thing they could do, is stop hosting for forums dedicated to doxxing and harassing people > This policy seems to only apply to content that they host. Yes, which is exactly what the parent commenter was saying.
  - chc 4y ago
    - mjr00 4y ago
      Words have meaning. If you want to understand the difference between hosting and providing security services, here's a good article: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies-and-approach/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies-and-a...
nightpool 4y ago
The article says that providing CDN and DDOS protection services for KiwiFarms doesn't constitute hosting. The GP commenter clearly disagrees. I'll be honest: it really does seem like a distinction without a difference to me. If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Kiwifarms is doing a great deal of harm to the world by being online. At the end of the day, Cloudflare has a moral responsibility to—at the very least—stop contributing their security and networking resources to the cause of "Keep Kiwifarms online".

subsistence234 4y ago

throwawayacc2 4y ago

DoctorOW 4y ago

The whole point of my comment is that I don't think it is easy. It'd be great, but it certainly isn't easy. If they get rid of Kiwi Farms, ultimately it's not going to fix the problem. They're going to find a new, harder to harass vendor for CDN. Cloudflare's detractors are going to find a new website to talk about. If you're talking about all websites that do this kind of thing, I have my doubts about how this would look in practice. Take down websites that use hate speech? Work to debunk hateful myths would likely get caught in that. Suspend websites that get X number of reports? Congrats, you've given botnets a far more effective tool for DDOS. Don't suspend those websites until a human analyzes them? That'd be ideal, although it seems like that's the system they have. Those humans appear to be instructed to only intervene when Cloudflare itself is the one causing harm. Kiwi Farms is hosted elsewhere using Cloudflare as a CDN.

llbeansandrice 4y ago
> They're going to find a new, harder to harass vendor for CDN. This is a good thing. It raises the barrier of entry to do what they want to do. They will likely provide a worse service as well.
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  > It raises the barrier of entry to do what they want to do. How so?
  - killyourcar 4y ago
    Any other CDN that will host then will not be as smooth and as capable and as well advertised as Cloudflare. It will be harder to get protection, so fewer sites will be able to succeed.