6 ms·

This is tangential but kind of on-topic since Tavis mentions KF in the replies, but I’ve found it pretty amusing that Cloudflare’s position on enabling doxxing,

This is tangential but kind of on-topic since Tavis mentions KF in the replies, but I’ve found it pretty amusing that Cloudflare’s position on enabling doxxing, harassment and DDOS-for-hire has been “Aw shucks, we’re just too darn powerful to do anything about any of this!” It’s as if anybody could fall ass backwards into a situation where they built up an organization that dictates what’s on the internet as a whoopsie, and oh no, you too would have to enable harassment, doxxing and DDOS-for-hire because shucks, all that darn unlimited, unchecked and unregulated power, access to money and legal resources is actually the same thing as having no power at all! Poor Cloudflare, they can do literally whatever they want and that means they can’t do anything at all!

penrouse 4y ago
Seems to me they're operating on a matter of principle. The Christians who run my local food bank do similar. Their clients include some of the worst people: rapists, paedophiles, murders - released from prison, with nothing and no-one to help them, other than these kind churchly individuals. Their principle is that Jesus would want them to help their fellow humans in need, no matter what their sins. So they do. Obviously it's a bit different with Cloudflare as they're a for-profit company of diversely ideological employees, not a non-profit charity of devoutly religious volunteers. But the former type of organisation can run on principles other than making money hand-over-fist too.
- sofixa 4y ago
  I think you can appreciate the difference between not letting former criminals (released from jail) starve and helping them integrate back in society, and actively providing them tools that they use to do terrible things, including crimes.
  - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    KF is just a forum, nothing posted there is illegal.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      Sadly, laws do in fact prohibit the posting of certain kinds of information and messages - for example, death threats, dox or hate speech, depending on your locale. Being "just a forum" does not change this. We can debate whether the laws should restrict speech that way, but don't pretend the laws in western countries don't exist.
      - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
        Sounds great - if a website is hosting content that is illegal, then there are laws that can be enforced by the government. The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. Its kind of a big deal. Hoping that corporations revoke their ddos protection so that terrorists can ddos them down is laughable. "I know the government can't do it, but ... just walk away wink wink and I am sure the problem will be fixed wink wink". Come on.
        zimpenfish 4y ago
        > The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. But USGOV doesn't run Cloudflare. They are perfectly able to pick and choose their own customers without any reference to 1A. > if a website is hosting content that is illegal No-one is obliged to service them.
        OrangeMonkey 4y ago
        You seem to misunderstand - or at least I hope you are misunderstanding. If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. You seem to imply "Well if they are doing something illegal, people shouldn't have to work with them." I think you know what I know - they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal.
- braingenious 4y ago
  >Seems to me they're operating on a matter of principle. That’s what I’m talking about. The “principle” argument is genuinely funny! They have unlimited power but because they’ve chosen to follow an arbitrary rule based on their arbitrary definition of neutrality, they have no power. It’s a coincidence that they enable doxxing, harassment and DDOS-for-hire because they’re religiously bound by a sacred covenant! They dare not cross the ancient gods lest blood and pestilence rain down upon all our heads! They’re not making a choice to continue enabling harassment, doxxing and DDOS-for-hire, they are simply doing as the sacred runes prescribe, as all orthodox stewards of the realm should and would do. It’s actually noble, we should actually be thanking them for acting this way. It’s just plain funny. As for your food bank analogy, do they provide food for active murderers and pedophiles? Like, if they were visited by current victims and the families of victims asking them for help, would they respond with a box of food for the perpetrators and tell the victims to kick rocks?
  - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    >DDOS-for-hire KF uses cloudflair specifically because it's haters try to DDOS the site.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    The only reason someone would advocate to turn off ddos protection for a site, is so someone can perform terroristic acts against the site and ddos it until it goes down. How about it - you tell me. What reason would so many people, maybe in this thread chain, argue so strongly for a company to revoke its ddos protection of a website they dont like. Its weird right?
    - braingenious 4y ago
      I would suggest that you take that question up with Cloudflare, as they just disabled DDOS protection for KF.
      - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
        Got it - but I'm asking you. It appears you were hoping that they would remove it. What possible reason did you have to hope that a site took away their ddos protection? Its weird right?
- jonstewart 4y ago
  Helping other sinners eat is a bit different than one company helping another company sell hate on the internet.
_8j50 4y ago
Your cops suck so you blame anyone but them? Should ISPs also be liable by your logic? Just like CF they can monitor and censor content. Make the Tor foundation liable as well since they run the Tor network while you are at it. Can't people criticize a company without trying to criticize everything about it? This isn't even related to the topic at hand.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
EarlKing 4y ago
No, their argument was that they shouldn't do anything about it because the two times they did it wound up causing every tinpot dictatorship to show up on their doorstep and demand they do the same for people that hadn't done anything wrong except piss off the wrong dictator. This is why rights exist in the first place: so that when some idiot erroneously says your sight is "enabling doxxing, harassment and DDOS-for-hire" when all you actually do is document the bad behavior of bad individuals on the internet, well, you don't get run out of town on a pole... because the guy with the pole knows that today it's you, but tomorrow it could be him.
- braingenious 4y ago
  > times they did it wound up causing every tinpot dictatorship to show up on their doorstep and demand they do the same for people that hadn't done anything wrong except piss off the wrong dictator Which they wielded their unlimited power to ignore.
  - stavros 4y ago
    And felt like they shouldn't be the ones judging whom to ignore and whom to not, yes.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      What? Cloudflare picks who to ignore every day. Nearly everybody that has a public email address has to decide who to ignore every day. What is so important about Cloudflare’s “feelings”?
      - stavros 4y ago
        Ah, sorry, I replied before I realized you were trolling. Carry on.
        braingenious 4y ago
        Ah sorry, I replied before I realized that you weren’t interested in actually discussing the topic.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Lets pretend that private firefighters exists and you had to pay for them to protect your house. It was a thing for most of the world. It _sounds_ like you are suggesting that private firefighters should let houses burn down if its something disagreeable. I have that wrong, I'm sure, so feel free to correct me.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Private firefighters still exist, and they do let houses burn down. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130435529 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130435...
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    Sure, if they don't pay the fee. In this case, we all appear to have been cheering and begging the private firefighter to just walk away so we can burn their house down in peace.
erichocean 4y ago
What does "KF" refer to? Nevermind, found it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudflare-drops-kiwifarms/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudfl... See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/
tomjen3 4y ago
Thats an extremely poor take on a very nuanced and complicated situation.

penrouse 4y ago

Seems to me they're operating on a matter of principle. The Christians who run my local food bank do similar. Their clients include some of the worst people: rapists, paedophiles, murders - released from prison, with nothing and no-one to help them, other than these kind churchly individuals. Their principle is that Jesus would want them to help their fellow humans in need, no matter what their sins. So they do. Obviously it's a bit different with Cloudflare as they're a for-profit company of diversely ideological employees, not a non-profit charity of devoutly religious volunteers. But the former type of organisation can run on principles other than making money hand-over-fist too.

sofixa 4y ago
I think you can appreciate the difference between not letting former criminals (released from jail) starve and helping them integrate back in society, and actively providing them tools that they use to do terrible things, including crimes.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  KF is just a forum, nothing posted there is illegal.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Sadly, laws do in fact prohibit the posting of certain kinds of information and messages - for example, death threats, dox or hate speech, depending on your locale. Being "just a forum" does not change this. We can debate whether the laws should restrict speech that way, but don't pretend the laws in western countries don't exist.
    - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
      Sounds great - if a website is hosting content that is illegal, then there are laws that can be enforced by the government. The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. Its kind of a big deal. Hoping that corporations revoke their ddos protection so that terrorists can ddos them down is laughable. "I know the government can't do it, but ... just walk away wink wink and I am sure the problem will be fixed wink wink". Come on.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        > The government, in the united states at least, cannot restrict freedom of speech. But USGOV doesn't run Cloudflare. They are perfectly able to pick and choose their own customers without any reference to 1A. > if a website is hosting content that is illegal No-one is obliged to service them.
        OrangeMonkey 4y ago
        You seem to misunderstand - or at least I hope you are misunderstanding. If a group is doing something illegal, the government should act. You seem to imply "Well if they are doing something illegal, people shouldn't have to work with them." I think you know what I know - they aren't going to be targeted by the government because they are not, in fact, doing something illegal.
braingenious 4y ago
>Seems to me they're operating on a matter of principle. That’s what I’m talking about. The “principle” argument is genuinely funny! They have unlimited power but because they’ve chosen to follow an arbitrary rule based on their arbitrary definition of neutrality, they have no power. It’s a coincidence that they enable doxxing, harassment and DDOS-for-hire because they’re religiously bound by a sacred covenant! They dare not cross the ancient gods lest blood and pestilence rain down upon all our heads! They’re not making a choice to continue enabling harassment, doxxing and DDOS-for-hire, they are simply doing as the sacred runes prescribe, as all orthodox stewards of the realm should and would do. It’s actually noble, we should actually be thanking them for acting this way. It’s just plain funny. As for your food bank analogy, do they provide food for active murderers and pedophiles? Like, if they were visited by current victims and the families of victims asking them for help, would they respond with a box of food for the perpetrators and tell the victims to kick rocks?
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
  >DDOS-for-hire KF uses cloudflair specifically because it's haters try to DDOS the site.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  The only reason someone would advocate to turn off ddos protection for a site, is so someone can perform terroristic acts against the site and ddos it until it goes down. How about it - you tell me. What reason would so many people, maybe in this thread chain, argue so strongly for a company to revoke its ddos protection of a website they dont like. Its weird right?
  - braingenious 4y ago
    I would suggest that you take that question up with Cloudflare, as they just disabled DDOS protection for KF.
    - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
      Got it - but I'm asking you. It appears you were hoping that they would remove it. What possible reason did you have to hope that a site took away their ddos protection? Its weird right?
jonstewart 4y ago
Helping other sinners eat is a bit different than one company helping another company sell hate on the internet.

_8j50 4y ago

Your cops suck so you blame anyone but them? Should ISPs also be liable by your logic? Just like CF they can monitor and censor content. Make the Tor foundation liable as well since they run the Tor network while you are at it. Can't people criticize a company without trying to criticize everything about it? This isn't even related to the topic at hand.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

EarlKing 4y ago

No, their argument was that they shouldn't do anything about it because the two times they did it wound up causing every tinpot dictatorship to show up on their doorstep and demand they do the same for people that hadn't done anything wrong except piss off the wrong dictator. This is why rights exist in the first place: so that when some idiot erroneously says your sight is "enabling doxxing, harassment and DDOS-for-hire" when all you actually do is document the bad behavior of bad individuals on the internet, well, you don't get run out of town on a pole... because the guy with the pole knows that today it's you, but tomorrow it could be him.

braingenious 4y ago
> times they did it wound up causing every tinpot dictatorship to show up on their doorstep and demand they do the same for people that hadn't done anything wrong except piss off the wrong dictator Which they wielded their unlimited power to ignore.
- stavros 4y ago
  And felt like they shouldn't be the ones judging whom to ignore and whom to not, yes.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    What? Cloudflare picks who to ignore every day. Nearly everybody that has a public email address has to decide who to ignore every day. What is so important about Cloudflare’s “feelings”?
    - stavros 4y ago
      Ah, sorry, I replied before I realized you were trolling. Carry on.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        Ah sorry, I replied before I realized that you weren’t interested in actually discussing the topic.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

Lets pretend that private firefighters exists and you had to pay for them to protect your house. It was a thing for most of the world. It _sounds_ like you are suggesting that private firefighters should let houses burn down if its something disagreeable. I have that wrong, I'm sure, so feel free to correct me.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Private firefighters still exist, and they do let houses burn down. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130435529 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130435...
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Sure, if they don't pay the fee. In this case, we all appear to have been cheering and begging the private firefighter to just walk away so we can burn their house down in peace.

erichocean 4y ago

What does "KF" refer to? Nevermind, found it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudflare-drops-kiwifarms/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/03/cloudfl... See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

tomjen3 4y ago

Thats an extremely poor take on a very nuanced and complicated situation.