3 ms·
I don't. My personal position is that corporations are awful at moral judgments, and I'd vastly prefer infrastructure companies not decide who can and can't be
by ocdtrekkie 4y ago
I don't. My personal position is that corporations are awful at moral judgments, and I'd vastly prefer infrastructure companies not decide who can and can't be on the Internet. I think it's imperative we solve this legally by pursuing a proper takedown of Kiwifarms, not by trying to encourage DDoSes to deal with it and then getting upset a company which prevents DDoS attacks prevented DDoS attacks.
- killyourcar 4y agoI'm not trying to encourage ddos, I'm saying only that Cloudflare doesn't need to protect them from ddos. You might argue that those things are a distinction without a difference, but I would disagree. Imo, kiwi farms will be the target of ddos no matter what, that's table stakes. So to me, the only thing I see is "is Cloudflare stepping in to help kiwi farms (at their own expense) or not".
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoCloudflare isn't "stepping in". Anyone can sign up for Cloudflare. So you're asking Cloudflare to explicitly step in and strip protection from a particular website against their policies of basically non-interference, presumably to enable a DDoS attack to succeed.