3 ms·

This seems like one of those cases where you need to assign responsibilities and obligations to those enabling the damage, even if their offerings also enable a

This seems like one of those cases where you need to assign responsibilities and obligations to those enabling the damage, even if their offerings also enable a lot of good. If you have the capacity to offer cheap/free VPS, then you also need to cover the cost of protecting against the DDoS attacks that service enables. You don't get to offload that burden on to the victims. If that makes your VPS offerings more expensive then so be it; that's the result of pricing in the externalities.

cuu508 5mo ago
Same with ISPs.
gruez 5mo ago
So if your kid downloaded a shady app, and it turned out that app had some residential VPN SDK, are you on the hook too? Does it stop at DDoS attacks? If it turned out they were scraping linkedin, can they sue you for a thousands of dollars of "harm" that you enabled?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- collingreen 5mo ago
  Seems petty clear the intent of the post you are replying to isn't to hold random parents accountable for thousands and instead to hold app developers (add maybe too open app marketplaces) accountable for malicious app behavior
  - TomatoCo 5mo ago
    This road seems to lead to the exclusion of third party app stores and/or the ability to load apps that aren't signed by Google/Apple.
    - iamnothere 5mo ago
      That’s what they want, it’s why you often see people popping up in discussions on HN supporting licensing for software developers.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
iamnothere 5mo ago
> If you have the capacity to offer cheap/free VPS, then you also need to cover the cost of protecting against the DDoS attacks that service enables. Which would drive the cost back up. What you are saying is that it should be impossible to run cheap services, and therefore hobbyists and shoestring startups are not allowed anymore. And as the sibling comment points out, where does this stop? Should ISPs be liable? DNS providers? Banks (already becoming an issue btw)? Why not just cut off anyone who looks suspicious from society, just in case? We have a legal system for a reason. It may be slow and imperfect, but it’s better than the alternative. Rule by law beats rule by man any day of the week.

cuu508 5mo ago

Same with ISPs.

gruez 5mo ago

So if your kid downloaded a shady app, and it turned out that app had some residential VPN SDK, are you on the hook too? Does it stop at DDoS attacks? If it turned out they were scraping linkedin, can they sue you for a thousands of dollars of "harm" that you enabled?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
collingreen 5mo ago
Seems petty clear the intent of the post you are replying to isn't to hold random parents accountable for thousands and instead to hold app developers (add maybe too open app marketplaces) accountable for malicious app behavior
- TomatoCo 5mo ago
  This road seems to lead to the exclusion of third party app stores and/or the ability to load apps that aren't signed by Google/Apple.
  - iamnothere 5mo ago
    That’s what they want, it’s why you often see people popping up in discussions on HN supporting licensing for software developers.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

iamnothere 5mo ago

> If you have the capacity to offer cheap/free VPS, then you also need to cover the cost of protecting against the DDoS attacks that service enables. Which would drive the cost back up. What you are saying is that it should be impossible to run cheap services, and therefore hobbyists and shoestring startups are not allowed anymore. And as the sibling comment points out, where does this stop? Should ISPs be liable? DNS providers? Banks (already becoming an issue btw)? Why not just cut off anyone who looks suspicious from society, just in case? We have a legal system for a reason. It may be slow and imperfect, but it’s better than the alternative. Rule by law beats rule by man any day of the week.