16 ms·
Glad to see this. Hurricane Electric has behaved in such an incredibly unprofessional manner regarding this entire ordeal. It began here: https://twitter.com/In
by IncogNET 3y ago
Glad to see this. Hurricane Electric has behaved in such an incredibly unprofessional manner regarding this entire ordeal. It began here: https://twitter.com/IncogNetLLC/status/1685359845505957888 https://twitter.com/IncogNetLLC/status/1685359845505957888
We filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. HE's response was more or less technically obtuse garbage and, "You're not our direct customer" (paraphrasing, of course).
So what they did, was take it upon themselves to prevent access to an entire /36 subnet of IPv6 that our customer had announced downstream of us. Not once did an abuse report get sent to us, or our upstream from HE. Nor did we receive any credible abuse reports sent to us directly from those upset that the site exists. Meanwhile, this actually has no direct impact on the website in question's existence as their opposition has learned by now, it's never been truly offline. Just temporarily blocked from certain ISPs.
From an ISP point of view, it's worrying that a transit provider like HE can arbitrarily cancel a customer of yours, or a customer of a customer (, etc) over legal, protected speech. So, from a business standpoint, what does HE have to gain? The people complaining about the site aren't their target market, they're mostly Twitch streamers, Twitter personalities and folks who have a following on popular platforms that already exist. They're not the types to be self-hosting a streaming service who'll need rackspace and transit. So, what is there to gain by bending the knee to them? The safest business decision would be to remain neutral, respond to law enforcement requests if presented with one, and otherwise do the job you're paid to do. The worst business decision is moderating the content of downstream customers, which is what we're seeing now.
- shadowgovt 3y ago[flagged]
- f38zf5vdt 3y agoYeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Christchurch_mosque_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Christchurch_mosque... edit: By the way, for all those people ripping on the ACLU and saying "they lost their way" below, they're actively defending 230 against claims of online-terrorism-by-proxy. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...
- richbell 3y ago> Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. Do you genuinely not see a problem with the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it? Christchurch was a horrific act of terrorism; that doesn't make attempting punish people for hosting or discussing content related to it justified.
- f38zf5vdt 3y agoThere is not a country in the world that does not believe some forms of speech are worth censoring. In most of the world, CSAM is treated similarly because they don't believe people should spread depraved images of other humans being harmed. US Federal law treats animal abuse imagery in this way: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48
- richbell 3y ago[flagged]
- f38zf5vdt 3y agoIran executes pedophiles, but I don't have to love the Iranian regime.
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoPeople "ought to love" crude vigilantism?
- richbell 3y ago> People "ought to love" crude vigilantism? I believe I said "you" and not "people". I'm not sure I would call documenting something online "crude vigilatiasm", but maybe that's just me.
- arp242 3y agoIf you want to argue that internet infrastructure providers should be blocking access to areas of the internet due to bad consequences and "being able to sleep at night", then there many more obvious and larger targets. The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes". It's a very odd target for all these free speech issues.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 3y agoThat's an extremely charitable description of what KiwiFarms is. What's your list of things to block that are higher up the list?
- aydyn 3y agoI dunno, terrorists?
- richbell 3y agoAnimal torture videos
- lucubratory 3y agoThose are blocked, and KiwiFarms engages in terrorism.
- aydyn 3y ago[flagged]
- zakki 3y agoBased on this[1] Wikipedia link I’ll put them in the terrorists forums. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
- deleted 3y ago
- cf141q5325 3y agoIf you sleep tight in a censored echo chamber you might be in for a rude awakening once you realize what atrocities that enables. But luckily you will only find out once you are at the receiving end of it?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 3y agoThe fact cyberbullies exist doesn't obligate anybody to support the site the cyberbullies organize on.
- cf141q5325 3y agoNobody is expecting you to pay for server costs and your opinion on the righteousness of your action doesnt absolve you of the responsibility for the delete function that was just created. Or gets you out of the predictable consequences. Old fashioned stuff like checks and balances werent around for fun and censoring stuff doesnt make it go away. Neither is a mob level targeting mechanism a good or safe idea. Creating means to create holes in the public discourse is utterly reckless as you have no means to tell how big they have become. And no means to address them. You just punched your eyes out because you didnt like the sight of something. The potential to create human misery with this is hard to overstate when people blatantly ignore the consequences. This is a nobody is going to hear you scream type of threat. Its also not a novel risk, we know how horrible attempts to dictate public discourse went in the totalitarian systems of the past. Not because of some evilness, but systemic inertia and no longer functioning breaks. Without the ability to communicate, we are screwed.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> Neither is a mob level targeting mechanism a good or safe idea. I think we agree on this. Which is why I'm in favor of giving no online quarter to KiwiFarms, a notorious site for organizing mobs. KF supporters and users are free to say whatever they want in their own forums. The freedom of speech has never implied an obligation for people to listen. And freedom of the press does imply a freedom to refrain from serving as a conduit for someone else's message, as does freedom of association. Nothing of what KF is doing or saying obligates anyone to provide them the tools to do or say it. They're as free as everyone else; they can print their own leaflets and stand on their own soapboxes. They don't have the right to obligate HE to facilitate them, directly or by proxy.
- networkchad 3y ago[flagged]
- itsnotabtmoney 3y ago> The safest business decision would be to remain neutral, respond to law enforcement requests if presented with one, and otherwise do the job you're paid to do. Have you considered that it might not be about money? What if the decision-makers and operators of Hurricane Electric just have certain people they just want to censor, and use their position to do it at the expense of money. Money is just a means to the end, and if they're getting to that end by foregoing money in business rather than spending it, that seems logical enough to me. And if the government is ideologically aligned with the operators of the company, you won't find any protection from them. And in many cases it's just the government and large companies working hand-in-glove to get to their ends. Some political outsiders threatening your political monopoly? Pull some strings and have their social media accounts removed and banking taken away; but there's no recourse since "muh private company" even though they're getting direct orders from government officials. So a good reason to be on the side of "free political speech" is that we don't want the people with the most money controlling what we can and can't say, and we don't want the government to have free reign to shut down criticism or challenges.
- f38zf5vdt 3y agoIf they choose not to host a platform that they don't like, isn't that free speech? Ironically, appealing to authority to enforce an internet service provider to provide speech they don't want to transmit seems like an imposition on a private entity operating freely.
- richbell 3y ago> Ironically, appealing to authority to enforce an internet service provider to provide speech they don't want to transmit seems like an imposition on a private entity operating freely. Look up "net neutrality" and "common carrier".
- johnnyanmac 3y agoThey get to make that choice when I get more than 0-1 alternative choices on which ISP I can use the access the internet in my area. Until then, saying their actions are "free speech" isn't too different from the days before water and electricity were owned by private corporations. I strongly believe primary ISP tubes should be a public service instead of owned by private corporate interests.
- throwaway2037 3y agoWe filed a complaint with the Washington state AG over their actions. When? Did anything happen? I don't expect this would be a priority for the attorney general.
- IncogNET 3y agoIt was later in July. To be clear, filing a complaint is simply an online form. This does not involve or require lawyers or any expense. The TLDR version is: We filed it as a violation of HB2282, Washignton State's Net Neutrality / Open Internet laws, the AG thought it was an appropriate complaint and forwarded it to HE. This gives them 21 days to respond. They (HE) responded relatively quickly, basically saying, "Nah, no we didn't and no we don't block access to it". At this point it'd be up to us to fight it further. We're not their direct customer, nor will we ever be (now). With that said, they very much WERE blocking access to the subnet as seen here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/b2/ed/Nc8NLQl2_o.png https://images2.imgbox.com/b2/ed/Nc8NLQl2_o.png ) and here ( https://images2.imgbox.com/58/e1/1ZIn3YbZ_o.png https://images2.imgbox.com/58/e1/1ZIn3YbZ_o.png ).
- CogitoCogito 3y agoIf HE is lying in response to a complaint forwarded to them by the AG, that seems like something the AG really should investigate. Edit: It's odd to see this downvoted. I don't care about Kiwifarms or all the other random crazy crap being discussed in this comment thread. But I do feel that companies should be honest in their communications. I'm surprised people here disagree.
- habinero 3y agoThis seems like an incredibly trivial thing to investigate. The AG is about consumer protections. This is absolutely not that.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoso what would be the proper channel to inquire about this stuff with?
- chonkerz 3y ago[flagged]
- NotSuspicious 3y agoI don't think attacking and maligning someone else while ignoring the substance of their comment is what HN should promote in their comments.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoAttacking and maligning people is kind of Kiwifarms' whole deal. Plus maybe a bit of stalking thrown in for good measure.
- kortilla 3y agoStill not an excuse to do it in kind.
- chonkerz 3y agoI wouldn't have had to say anything if the above poster disclosed his commercial interest in promoting that particular skewed viewpoint.
- concordDance 3y agoThat can also describe a lot of "journalism", seems like a potentially problematic place to draw the line.
- slikrick 3y agowhere are they attacking and maligning the user? they're clearly stating important background information for readers
- johnchristopher 3y agoSometimes it's a big no-no on HN to comment or point out background information or context and sometimes it's not.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mrweasel 3y agoSo not knowing either company, is IncogNet and CrunchBits related companies in some way? I ask because the article just talks about Crunchbits, which I didn't know about. I tried to look looking up CrunchBits, but that's not really possible on Bing based search engines. There are a few links to reviews, but the Crunchbits website seems to have scrubbed from Bing.
- IncogNET 3y agoThey're the direct customer of Hurricane Electric, and our server provider in that region of the US. We have our ASN and IPs announced on their network.
- chonkerz 3y ago[flagged]
- IncogNET 3y agoWhile it's certainly a comical thought to imagine a business opening their doors and waiting years to onboard a single customer, that an upstream swiftly cancels on their behalf, it's nothing more than a far-fetched story that you're telling. Do you genuinely believe that both of these businesses exist to support a single customer? Abuse complaints have to be valid. Submitting opinion pieces to our inbox is good reading, but beyond that, relatively pointless without links to actual unlawful content. I can't speak on behalf of Crunchbits since we simply lease hardware from them, but they likely subscribe to the same policy that most service providers do.
- dmatech 3y agoIt would be better to call a lawyer or the police. There's no AUP or TOS for the entire internet (aside from stuff that endangers the network itself), and I'm strongly opposed to any efforts to create one.
- minerva23 3y ago"Free speech is for everyone, even the people planning and orchestrating your murder." FTFY
- johnnyanmac 3y agoTo be clear: death threats are not protected free speech. But yes, it's inevitable due to the global and gargantuan nature of the internet that enforcing consequences against hate speech and harassment for any single govy. is extremely hard, even for countries that unequivocally outlaw it.