3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > Any encroachment by the government..... my ability to speak freely. Look, if you are ok with authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations, then say so. > I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario So, one big reason why cloudflare is used, is by human rights organizations to protect themselves from being DDoS'ed by authoritarian governments. If you don't care about that, then just say so. > is otherwise devoid of government interference. It is not devoid from government interference, because cloudflare stops authoritarian governments from interfering with human right's organizations. And, as I said before, this precedent hurts cloudfares ability to protect human right's organizations from being taken down by these governments, by protecting them from DDoS attacks, from those governments. > If there is a government actor, department, or anything Every time cloudflare is pressured to stop protecting websites, this is ammo that authoritarian governments can use against them, to drop protections for other organizations, such as human rights organizations. It might not happen tomorrow, but it is more ammo that these governments can use.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        This is a long way of saying that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send.
        stale2002 4y ago
        Can you answer the question? Why do you keep avoiding this idea of authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations? > that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send. So, if an authoritarian government, tried to target a gay rights organization, yes I would be ok with a different government protecting this targeted minority from DDoS attacks. This is because I do not want important human rights organizations, such as ones that protect gay people from being oppressed, from being taken off the internet by bad people. Do you see how I just directly addressed the question, by saying that yes I am in favor of the government protecting, for example, gay rights organizations, from being DDoSed? Do you really oppose this protection? Would you support an authoritarian government, taking down a gay rights organization?

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.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > Any encroachment by the government..... my ability to speak freely. Look, if you are ok with authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations, then say so. > I'm not sure why you're dragging government into a scenario So, one big reason why cloudflare is used, is by human rights organizations to protect themselves from being DDoS'ed by authoritarian governments. If you don't care about that, then just say so. > is otherwise devoid of government interference. It is not devoid from government interference, because cloudflare stops authoritarian governments from interfering with human right's organizations. And, as I said before, this precedent hurts cloudfares ability to protect human right's organizations from being taken down by these governments, by protecting them from DDoS attacks, from those governments. > If there is a government actor, department, or anything Every time cloudflare is pressured to stop protecting websites, this is ammo that authoritarian governments can use against them, to drop protections for other organizations, such as human rights organizations. It might not happen tomorrow, but it is more ammo that these governments can use.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      This is a long way of saying that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        Can you answer the question? Why do you keep avoiding this idea of authoritarian governments DDoSing human rights organizations? > that you're ok with the government censoring which packets people send. So, if an authoritarian government, tried to target a gay rights organization, yes I would be ok with a different government protecting this targeted minority from DDoS attacks. This is because I do not want important human rights organizations, such as ones that protect gay people from being oppressed, from being taken off the internet by bad people. Do you see how I just directly addressed the question, by saying that yes I am in favor of the government protecting, for example, gay rights organizations, from being DDoSed? Do you really oppose this protection? Would you support an authoritarian government, taking down a gay rights organization?