7 ms·

They address this: > Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for si

They address this: > Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for silencing vulnerable groups, but are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing problematic content online. We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Borgz 4y ago
My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.
- subsistence234 4y ago
- AtNightWeCode 4y ago
  Agree, there are double standards in work here and I think cf must pick a side.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  To use the analogy in the blog post: renting out a building to drug dealers is different from having firefighters save the drug dealers from a fire.
  - schleck8 4y ago
    That analogy is obviously manipulative. A DDoS is not going to kill anyone unlike a fire (or swatting evidently).
    - yarrel 4y ago
      Kiwi Farms recently DDoSed a suicide prevention hotline. So you are factually wrong.
      - schleck8 4y ago
        You can't DDoS a phone number can you? Maybe their website but google snippets should cache the number
        viraptor 4y ago
        I can't tell if you're missing the point or trolling, but just in case: There's only a limited number of people in the call centre. By overwhelming the queue, you prevent others reaching the service.
        pixl97 4y ago
        A huge number of companies use VOIP so in theory, ya you can if you know the servers IP.
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        What? A quick search on the farms didn't turn anything up about that. Only thing I can find is the farm being ddosd rather than the other way around. And for that matter, a search through google and such didnt turn up anything either. And if its just "x says they did it" without ANY evidence, then how could I believe that?
        ranger_danger 4y ago
        It actually doesn't matter at all. They just proved that there ARE situations that a DDoS can endanger people's lives (including more we aren't even thinking about), whether or not KF is even related in this case.
- elefantastisch 4y ago
  So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. It's not that we value police procedure more than we value the life of the victim. We value rule of law and due process as a society more than any individual gap in applying justice in a given case. Yes, if we ignore procedure and lock that murderer up anyway, we will have done better justice for the victim. But then we will no longer have a functioning criminal justice system, and that's much worse in the long run. If Cloudflare allows DDoS to take down these horrible sites, the world will definitely be a better place in many ways. But then it will also be a world where we deal with problems via DDoS and whether you get to keep your site up or have it DDoSed is subject to the whims of Cloudflare. DDoSing sites won't be "wrong" anymore, it'll be a question of whether they deserved it or not. This is not how we do justice as a society. If someone punches you in the face without instigation, we don't ask if you deserved it, we charge them with assault. Cloudflare allowing DDoS of content they don't like would be a bit like allowing assault of people we don't like. Maybe there are some people we're happy to see punched in the face, but in the long run, our society suffers. Protecting people from getting punched in the face, even when they deserve it, is fundamental to maintaining rule of law in society. Wrongdoers are punished after due process of law, not arbitrarily by any vigilante who decides to give them what they deserve. That is essentially what Cloudflare is arguing.
  - M2Ys4U 4y ago
    > So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.
    - endtime 4y ago
      Rule of law and due process are the best way of doing things, and are not exclusively American concepts.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
They speak to it, I wouldn’t say that’s addressing it. They’re simply repeating a variation of the liberal viewpoint that nazis shouldn’t be punched, they should be convinced of their wrongs through peaceful social means (which invites naziism right in) or law enforcement (which, well, piggies like their own kind). If Matt Prince were the head of the Inglorious Basterds, he’d evidently reform them to vote blue instead of scalping nazis
worldofmatthew 4y ago
- ranger_danger 4y ago
  So sick of this argument. They clearly just stated that they believe everyone should have access to protection. This is like saying "walmart, known for supplying mass murderers with guns!"
  - worldofmatthew 4y ago
    Your comment has aged badly.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
solsane 4y ago
I feel like this should be the end of the discussion. A crime against a criminal is still a crime. Furthermore, who decides who the ‘criminal’ is? A ‘tit for tat’ policy may leave progressive activists and whistleblowers vulnerable to DDoS.

Borgz 4y ago

My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.

subsistence234 4y ago
AtNightWeCode 4y ago
Agree, there are double standards in work here and I think cf must pick a side.
Georgelemental 4y ago
To use the analogy in the blog post: renting out a building to drug dealers is different from having firefighters save the drug dealers from a fire.
- schleck8 4y ago
  That analogy is obviously manipulative. A DDoS is not going to kill anyone unlike a fire (or swatting evidently).
  - yarrel 4y ago
    Kiwi Farms recently DDoSed a suicide prevention hotline. So you are factually wrong.
    - schleck8 4y ago
      You can't DDoS a phone number can you? Maybe their website but google snippets should cache the number
      - viraptor 4y ago
        I can't tell if you're missing the point or trolling, but just in case: There's only a limited number of people in the call centre. By overwhelming the queue, you prevent others reaching the service.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        A huge number of companies use VOIP so in theory, ya you can if you know the servers IP.
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      What? A quick search on the farms didn't turn anything up about that. Only thing I can find is the farm being ddosd rather than the other way around. And for that matter, a search through google and such didnt turn up anything either. And if its just "x says they did it" without ANY evidence, then how could I believe that?
      - ranger_danger 4y ago
        It actually doesn't matter at all. They just proved that there ARE situations that a DDoS can endanger people's lives (including more we aren't even thinking about), whether or not KF is even related in this case.
elefantastisch 4y ago
So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. It's not that we value police procedure more than we value the life of the victim. We value rule of law and due process as a society more than any individual gap in applying justice in a given case. Yes, if we ignore procedure and lock that murderer up anyway, we will have done better justice for the victim. But then we will no longer have a functioning criminal justice system, and that's much worse in the long run. If Cloudflare allows DDoS to take down these horrible sites, the world will definitely be a better place in many ways. But then it will also be a world where we deal with problems via DDoS and whether you get to keep your site up or have it DDoSed is subject to the whims of Cloudflare. DDoSing sites won't be "wrong" anymore, it'll be a question of whether they deserved it or not. This is not how we do justice as a society. If someone punches you in the face without instigation, we don't ask if you deserved it, we charge them with assault. Cloudflare allowing DDoS of content they don't like would be a bit like allowing assault of people we don't like. Maybe there are some people we're happy to see punched in the face, but in the long run, our society suffers. Protecting people from getting punched in the face, even when they deserve it, is fundamental to maintaining rule of law in society. Wrongdoers are punished after due process of law, not arbitrarily by any vigilante who decides to give them what they deserve. That is essentially what Cloudflare is arguing.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  > So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it. That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.
  - endtime 4y ago
    Rule of law and due process are the best way of doing things, and are not exclusively American concepts.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

They speak to it, I wouldn’t say that’s addressing it. They’re simply repeating a variation of the liberal viewpoint that nazis shouldn’t be punched, they should be convinced of their wrongs through peaceful social means (which invites naziism right in) or law enforcement (which, well, piggies like their own kind). If Matt Prince were the head of the Inglorious Basterds, he’d evidently reform them to vote blue instead of scalping nazis

worldofmatthew 4y ago

ranger_danger 4y ago
So sick of this argument. They clearly just stated that they believe everyone should have access to protection. This is like saying "walmart, known for supplying mass murderers with guns!"
- worldofmatthew 4y ago
  Your comment has aged badly.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

solsane 4y ago

I feel like this should be the end of the discussion. A crime against a criminal is still a crime. Furthermore, who decides who the ‘criminal’ is? A ‘tit for tat’ policy may leave progressive activists and whistleblowers vulnerable to DDoS.