5 ms·

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 u

by 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".
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  > If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Someone said The Daily Stormer and 8Chan are online today.[1] But this would mean Cloudflare can stop doing business with Kiwi Farms without limiting speech. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32662368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32662368
  - howdyfolks 4y ago
    It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online
    - pseudalopex 4y ago
      > It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online How is it the opposite?
- mjr00 4y ago
  Thank you, this is a more interesting argument than the people reacting emotionally without reading the article. Assuming we all agree that KF is reprehensible, the question is where is the line of moral obligation to stop supporting them. In the most reductive case, you could argue that anyone selling food or water to white supremacists is supporting white supremacy. Or that firefighters who put out a fire at a white supremacist's house are supporting white supremacy. But I don't think people generally consider that to be providing support, whereas they would consider, say, hosting a conference and paying white supremacists to speak at it as supporting white supremacists. So where is the exact line where it becomes "support"? It's ambiguous. Cloudflare is in an unenviable position of being exactly on the line where moral obligation rests, further complicated by providing different products around hosting and DDOS mitigation. IMO, there is a clear distinction between hosting content and providing DDOS mitigation services, as the article suggests. And just as you wouldn't want your electric company unilaterally deciding that you were a white supremacist and cutting your power, I agree with CF's stance that they shouldn't be making extrajudicial decisions about which customers to use their DDOS protection.

by mjr00 4y ago

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".

pseudalopex 4y ago
> If Cloudflare stopped doing business with Kiwifarms, it wouldn't be online. Someone said The Daily Stormer and 8Chan are online today.[1] But this would mean Cloudflare can stop doing business with Kiwi Farms without limiting speech. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32662368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32662368
- howdyfolks 4y ago
  It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    > It is so interesting that you draw that conclusion. I draw the opposite: that whether Cloudflare withdraws services or not is going to make no meaningful difference to whether KF remains online How is it the opposite?
mjr00 4y ago
Thank you, this is a more interesting argument than the people reacting emotionally without reading the article. Assuming we all agree that KF is reprehensible, the question is where is the line of moral obligation to stop supporting them. In the most reductive case, you could argue that anyone selling food or water to white supremacists is supporting white supremacy. Or that firefighters who put out a fire at a white supremacist's house are supporting white supremacy. But I don't think people generally consider that to be providing support, whereas they would consider, say, hosting a conference and paying white supremacists to speak at it as supporting white supremacists. So where is the exact line where it becomes "support"? It's ambiguous. Cloudflare is in an unenviable position of being exactly on the line where moral obligation rests, further complicated by providing different products around hosting and DDOS mitigation. IMO, there is a clear distinction between hosting content and providing DDOS mitigation services, as the article suggests. And just as you wouldn't want your electric company unilaterally deciding that you were a white supremacist and cutting your power, I agree with CF's stance that they shouldn't be making extrajudicial decisions about which customers to use their DDOS protection.