5 ms·

Only after you explain in what way it is relevant with regards to the point that DDoSing a server is not part of the marketplace of ideas.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I categorically privilege human life over website accessibility. Do people generally not do this?
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Great. But, that's not what I asked.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Sending a packet is free speech. Being prevented from sending a packet is censorship. It's pretty simple. Not really sure why we needed to take a detour into shooting people, but here we are.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      >Sending a packet is free speech. No, there's no law anywhere that includes actions performed by machines in the definition of free speech. DDoSing a server is not performance art, and neither is shooting someone.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I guess that makes sense if you think people's free speech is granted by laws. I think it's a natural right enshrined/protected by laws.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a natural right. A right only exists where it goes unchallenged or where there's a force to answer such challenges. That force can come from laws and the power of a state or it can come from someplace else, but it needs to come from somewhere. You can believe that you have the right to send any packets you like however you like, but if you can't defend that right and you don't have anyone who will defend it for you, you may find there are those who will ensure your belief stays as just that.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Sorry, but I don't need someone to try to convince me that I have less rights than I do.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        Okay, then I recommend you to go on DDoSing campaigns and see how it goes. Maybe you really do have that right, I don't know.
- stale2002 4y ago
  The problem is that human lives are likely to be lost over this precedent being set. This isn't about 1 website here. This is about the precedent. Every time cloudflare gets bullied into taking a website offline, it is ammunition that an authoritarian government can use against it. What happens when one of these countries starts to threaten cloudflare employees lives, to force them to take down some human rights organizations' websites? Maybe it won't happen tomorrow. But every time a mob forces cloudflare to take these sorts of actions, it weakens cloudflare's ability to fight against the real threats. If you want to stand by your opinion in this, then fine. But I get to hold you responsible for the deaths that happen, if cloudflare is no longer able to stand up against these greater threats.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    > I get to hold you responsible for the deaths that happen, if cloudflare is no longer able to stand up against these greater threats. This isn't how normal people think.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Look, if you simply don't care that authoritarian governments could use this precedent to target minorities, then you should just say so. I, on the other hand, am concerned about the lives that could be lost, due to authoritarian governments having more ammo to pressure cloudflare with. This specific time might not be the tipping point. But if stuff like this keeps happening, the real threats can use the precedent to target vulnerable groups, and yes that can cause lives to be lost.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        You seem very obsessed with authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live under authoritarianism either. Why don't we stretch this in any old way back to DDoS? Why should the government say which packets I can and cannot send? Any encroachment by the government into something as silly as sending DDoS packets slices down my ability to speak freely. If they start at DDoS, then what's stopping them from limiting other forms of speech? See, I can do the same thing. Just because free speech in the form of sending DDoS packets isn't liked by people doesn't mean we should be willing to give it up. Right? Because once we start limiting what kind of packets we can send, we're only a slipper slope away from being told which other kinds of packets we can't send. Still, I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario which is otherwise devoid of government interference. In this whole story, all I see is a bunch of civilians. If there is a government actor, department, or anything, please share. Otherwise it just looks like standard whataboutism directed at the govt.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

I categorically privilege human life over website accessibility. Do people generally not do this?

fluoridation 4y ago
Great. But, that's not what I asked.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Sending a packet is free speech. Being prevented from sending a packet is censorship. It's pretty simple. Not really sure why we needed to take a detour into shooting people, but here we are.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    >Sending a packet is free speech. No, there's no law anywhere that includes actions performed by machines in the definition of free speech. DDoSing a server is not performance art, and neither is shooting someone.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      I guess that makes sense if you think people's free speech is granted by laws. I think it's a natural right enshrined/protected by laws.
      - fluoridation 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a natural right. A right only exists where it goes unchallenged or where there's a force to answer such challenges. That force can come from laws and the power of a state or it can come from someplace else, but it needs to come from somewhere. You can believe that you have the right to send any packets you like however you like, but if you can't defend that right and you don't have anyone who will defend it for you, you may find there are those who will ensure your belief stays as just that.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Sorry, but I don't need someone to try to convince me that I have less rights than I do.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        Okay, then I recommend you to go on DDoSing campaigns and see how it goes. Maybe you really do have that right, I don't know.
stale2002 4y ago
The problem is that human lives are likely to be lost over this precedent being set. This isn't about 1 website here. This is about the precedent. Every time cloudflare gets bullied into taking a website offline, it is ammunition that an authoritarian government can use against it. What happens when one of these countries starts to threaten cloudflare employees lives, to force them to take down some human rights organizations' websites? Maybe it won't happen tomorrow. But every time a mob forces cloudflare to take these sorts of actions, it weakens cloudflare's ability to fight against the real threats. If you want to stand by your opinion in this, then fine. But I get to hold you responsible for the deaths that happen, if cloudflare is no longer able to stand up against these greater threats.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  > I get to hold you responsible for the deaths that happen, if cloudflare is no longer able to stand up against these greater threats. This isn't how normal people think.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Look, if you simply don't care that authoritarian governments could use this precedent to target minorities, then you should just say so. I, on the other hand, am concerned about the lives that could be lost, due to authoritarian governments having more ammo to pressure cloudflare with. This specific time might not be the tipping point. But if stuff like this keeps happening, the real threats can use the precedent to target vulnerable groups, and yes that can cause lives to be lost.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      You seem very obsessed with authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live under authoritarianism either. Why don't we stretch this in any old way back to DDoS? Why should the government say which packets I can and cannot send? Any encroachment by the government into something as silly as sending DDoS packets slices down my ability to speak freely. If they start at DDoS, then what's stopping them from limiting other forms of speech? See, I can do the same thing. Just because free speech in the form of sending DDoS packets isn't liked by people doesn't mean we should be willing to give it up. Right? Because once we start limiting what kind of packets we can send, we're only a slipper slope away from being told which other kinds of packets we can't send. Still, I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario which is otherwise devoid of government interference. In this whole story, all I see is a bunch of civilians. If there is a government actor, department, or anything, please share. Otherwise it just looks like standard whataboutism directed at the govt.