5 ms·

I have never heard of this service before. But this part in the end: > This is not the kind of work we imagine when acquiring it and recently our proxy provide

I have never heard of this service before. But this part in the end: > This is not the kind of work we imagine when acquiring it and recently our proxy provider shut us down. Really? You created a website where people could anonymously upload files to share with others. What did you really expect was going to happen? It's kinda naive to think a service like this would be all happy times in the world we have today.

Xanza 3y ago
I really don't think it's some horrendous oversight to expect that people will be kind to a service that you offer. If you offer anonymous and free image uploading it's not wrong to assume that not 100% of your traffic will be pornographic uploads and I also don't think it's wrong that if after years of your offering, if you get to the point where all of your uploads are porn, that you feel the need to shutdown your service. Nobody is entitled to do bad things with good tools.
- 39 3y ago
  Why is porn bad?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Lets refine this further... Why is child porn bad... And, why will the government punish you out of existence if you allow the trafficking of it?
  - constantly 3y ago
    In theory nothing assuming it involves only consenting adults. In practice it’s very exploitative of vulnerable people to such a degree that it becomes ethically fraught.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I really don't think it's some horrendous oversight to expect that people will be kind to a service that you offer. Its not like anonymous file hosting on the internet was a new thing two years ago. It very much is a major oversight to offer (or acquire) a service in an existing, established segment and have no idea what the usage patterns and challenges in that segment are. > If you offer anonymous and free image uploading it's not wrong to assume that not 100% of your traffic will be pornographic uploads Its file, not just image, hosting, but, yeah, you should probably assume that the stuff that the most controversial aspect of it is that it is just porn will be toward the milder end. And their piece doesn't say “porn” it says “abuse”.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  I doubt porn was the major impetus. I'm guessing CP (technically porn, sure; probably not what you meant), death/gore videos, pirated software/media, etc were the main issue.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Yea, CP on anonymous and messed up shares has been a problem for just about forever. Saw a company that accidently DMZ'd their printer with a public IP, and this had to be over 15 years ago at this point. Had anony ftp open on it, and yea, exactly what you expect happened.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    How is pirated software an issue or "abuse" in any way? Just take it down when you get a DMCA request and that's about it. I think it's much more likely that people used it to host CP and malware....
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    Anything illegal on these forums is going to be encrypted with the decrypt passwords shared over tor sites. It's not like people are posting a cleartext version of stolen_credit_cards.csv The operators don't know what's being posted. This is a problem because it's what's called "inducement of a crime" - it's like if you say "We are a bar that doesn't check IDs" - you have a responsibility that comes with the operations. If you have a bunch of underage people in the bar because of your policy of not checking IDs, that responsibility falls on you. When you choose to forego responsibilities, you get that secondary liability. See Kim Dotcom, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 and Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC. The courts have spoken many times on this and with a single voice. You can have a service, then turn your head close your eyes and say "we'll just let freedom happen" but that doesn't excuse you from being responsible for what happens.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Anyone can upload encrypted data to anything. You can do the same thing with Pastebin or Google Drive or Reddit or AWS. And there are many lawful reasons to want to be anonymous. > See Kim Dotcom. Megaupload got in trouble because their employees actively knew about and participated in infringement. Mega.com, which encrypts everything by default so they don't know what it is, is... still there?
- ChoHag 3y ago
  [dead]
DigiDigiorno 3y ago
I also haven't heard of it, but I'm curious of the "when acquiring it" part of the quote. Did the current owner not create the site? Did they acquire an anonymous file sharing site and are now shutting it down for the predictable anonymous file sharing issues? Perhaps it's an English translation issue or something, but, in common parlance, the word "acquire" means to buy or obtain from elsewhere. (I don't think they are referring to the domain name itself, because that has nothing to do with the complaints listed.)
- Stagnant 3y ago
  I was confused as well because I remember anonfiles being around at least a decade, which seems to be the case (first archive.org snapshots are from 2011). I suppose it does mean that the current owner bought it but it doesn't seem like they made any major changes. The layout and functionality of the site stayed pretty much the same for the entirety of its existence.
jfim 3y ago
Yet there's an online encyclopedia that people can anonymously edit and upload files to.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Wikipedia still keeps tabs on who is updating what via IP tracking. It's anonymous (arguably pseudonymous if the IP is considered a name) but they still pay attention to users doing things. > We have auto banned contents of hundreds of thousands files. > Banned file names and also banned specific usage patterns ... Nothing about banned IPs.
  - SargeDebian 3y ago
    I don't think IPs are banned outright, but they lose the right to edit without an account. I think my mobile provider uses CGNAT and I can't edit anonymously on cellular.
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      > I don't think IPs are banned outright, but they lose the right to edit without an account. By default, blocking an IP or IP range prevents users from those IPs from making edits, with or without an account, or creating accounts. Similarly, if an account is blocked, any IPs they've edited from recently get blocked as well. All of these functions can be customized on a per-block basis; blocks on shared IP ranges are usually configured to allow account creation and logged-in edits.
- paxys 3y ago
  Which is also one of the most heavily moderated sites in the world.
- dole 3y ago
  It’s like the difference between opening a library and a public toilet in the middle of Times Square, and expecting the toilet to be used what it was intended for and not get crusted with shit.
willsoon 3y ago
Sorry, I replied before reading the whole thread. Well. I have none of those good accouts on good sites like google or 365ish like everyone else. So yes. Sometimes I don't know how to send large files. Sure I can make a page on github, sure I can upload the file to IPFS, put it on a link and make it look like a normal link. This idea just came to me as I was writing this post

Xanza 3y ago

I really don't think it's some horrendous oversight to expect that people will be kind to a service that you offer. If you offer anonymous and free image uploading it's not wrong to assume that not 100% of your traffic will be pornographic uploads and I also don't think it's wrong that if after years of your offering, if you get to the point where all of your uploads are porn, that you feel the need to shutdown your service. Nobody is entitled to do bad things with good tools.

39 3y ago
Why is porn bad?
- pixl97 3y ago
  Lets refine this further... Why is child porn bad... And, why will the government punish you out of existence if you allow the trafficking of it?
- constantly 3y ago
  In theory nothing assuming it involves only consenting adults. In practice it’s very exploitative of vulnerable people to such a degree that it becomes ethically fraught.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I really don't think it's some horrendous oversight to expect that people will be kind to a service that you offer. Its not like anonymous file hosting on the internet was a new thing two years ago. It very much is a major oversight to offer (or acquire) a service in an existing, established segment and have no idea what the usage patterns and challenges in that segment are. > If you offer anonymous and free image uploading it's not wrong to assume that not 100% of your traffic will be pornographic uploads Its file, not just image, hosting, but, yeah, you should probably assume that the stuff that the most controversial aspect of it is that it is just porn will be toward the milder end. And their piece doesn't say “porn” it says “abuse”.
deaddodo 3y ago
I doubt porn was the major impetus. I'm guessing CP (technically porn, sure; probably not what you meant), death/gore videos, pirated software/media, etc were the main issue.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Yea, CP on anonymous and messed up shares has been a problem for just about forever. Saw a company that accidently DMZ'd their printer with a public IP, and this had to be over 15 years ago at this point. Had anony ftp open on it, and yea, exactly what you expect happened.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  How is pirated software an issue or "abuse" in any way? Just take it down when you get a DMCA request and that's about it. I think it's much more likely that people used it to host CP and malware....
- kristopolous 3y ago
  Anything illegal on these forums is going to be encrypted with the decrypt passwords shared over tor sites. It's not like people are posting a cleartext version of stolen_credit_cards.csv The operators don't know what's being posted. This is a problem because it's what's called "inducement of a crime" - it's like if you say "We are a bar that doesn't check IDs" - you have a responsibility that comes with the operations. If you have a bunch of underage people in the bar because of your policy of not checking IDs, that responsibility falls on you. When you choose to forego responsibilities, you get that secondary liability. See Kim Dotcom, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 and Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC. The courts have spoken many times on this and with a single voice. You can have a service, then turn your head close your eyes and say "we'll just let freedom happen" but that doesn't excuse you from being responsible for what happens.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Anyone can upload encrypted data to anything. You can do the same thing with Pastebin or Google Drive or Reddit or AWS. And there are many lawful reasons to want to be anonymous. > See Kim Dotcom. Megaupload got in trouble because their employees actively knew about and participated in infringement. Mega.com, which encrypts everything by default so they don't know what it is, is... still there?
ChoHag 3y ago
[dead]

DigiDigiorno 3y ago

I also haven't heard of it, but I'm curious of the "when acquiring it" part of the quote. Did the current owner not create the site? Did they acquire an anonymous file sharing site and are now shutting it down for the predictable anonymous file sharing issues? Perhaps it's an English translation issue or something, but, in common parlance, the word "acquire" means to buy or obtain from elsewhere. (I don't think they are referring to the domain name itself, because that has nothing to do with the complaints listed.)

Stagnant 3y ago
I was confused as well because I remember anonfiles being around at least a decade, which seems to be the case (first archive.org snapshots are from 2011). I suppose it does mean that the current owner bought it but it doesn't seem like they made any major changes. The layout and functionality of the site stayed pretty much the same for the entirety of its existence.

jfim 3y ago

Yet there's an online encyclopedia that people can anonymously edit and upload files to.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Wikipedia still keeps tabs on who is updating what via IP tracking. It's anonymous (arguably pseudonymous if the IP is considered a name) but they still pay attention to users doing things. > We have auto banned contents of hundreds of thousands files. > Banned file names and also banned specific usage patterns ... Nothing about banned IPs.
- SargeDebian 3y ago
  I don't think IPs are banned outright, but they lose the right to edit without an account. I think my mobile provider uses CGNAT and I can't edit anonymously on cellular.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    > I don't think IPs are banned outright, but they lose the right to edit without an account. By default, blocking an IP or IP range prevents users from those IPs from making edits, with or without an account, or creating accounts. Similarly, if an account is blocked, any IPs they've edited from recently get blocked as well. All of these functions can be customized on a per-block basis; blocks on shared IP ranges are usually configured to allow account creation and logged-in edits.
paxys 3y ago
Which is also one of the most heavily moderated sites in the world.
dole 3y ago
It’s like the difference between opening a library and a public toilet in the middle of Times Square, and expecting the toilet to be used what it was intended for and not get crusted with shit.

willsoon 3y ago

Sorry, I replied before reading the whole thread. Well. I have none of those good accouts on good sites like google or 365ish like everyone else. So yes. Sometimes I don't know how to send large files. Sure I can make a page on github, sure I can upload the file to IPFS, put it on a link and make it look like a normal link. This idea just came to me as I was writing this post