[HN Gopher] Blocking Kiwifarms ___________________________________________________________________ Blocking Kiwifarms Author : deepdriver Score : 198 points Date : 2022-09-03 22:17 UTC (42 minutes ago) (HTM) web link (blog.cloudflare.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.cloudflare.com) | SirPatrickMoore wrote: | trasz wrote: | Good to see at least the tanking share prices can convince | Cloudflare owners to change their deeply held moral beliefs :D | wyager wrote: | > Feeling attacked, users of the site became even more | aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached | out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting | what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats | to human life | | What are they talking about? From what I've seen, this is | somewhere between grossly exaggerated and completely fictional. | Did they see someone post the "300 confirmed kills" copypasta and | think it was serious? | SirPatrickMoore wrote: | cosmodisk wrote: | Never heard of kiwifarms before but after having a quick read on | it, I don't see any reasons why any provider of any sorts would | deal with them. Not sure how screwed up in their heads people | need to be to engage in this kind of shit. | Sansos wrote: | Nahtnah wrote: | Surprised at the number of people on here arguing against this | because of 'censorship' who by their own words pretty clearly | frequent the site... | smcl wrote: | I think those who are arguing against it either don't know | quite how extreme KiwiFarms is, or strongly agree with the | hatred, doxing and SWATting of minorities and vulnerable | people that their members do. | Nahtnah wrote: | I suppose you're right, and a bunch of them seem to be | throwaways, or perhaps people who only made an account to | defend their site (I'm basically on a throwaway too). Sad | they fell into the same persecution complex thing people | seem to get trapped in... like you're really defending the | site where they welcomed the Christchurch shooter's | manifesto? You really think you're doing something? That's | what you want to fight for? | ericzawo wrote: | Hope the tech elite who naysay journalism take note that it | wasn't the 3 suicides, or the swatting, or the death threats or | the stalking or the harassment that compelled Matthew Prince to | stop hosting kiwifarms. | | It was the heat from negative PR that did it. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I don't think it matters if you're the host (ethically) if you're | responsible for facilitating access. | debacle wrote: | I am a free speech absolutist, but I read the Wikipedia page on | this site and it seems bad. "Crimes were committed," "People lost | their lives" bad. Unjustifiably bad. | | That said, is anyone willing to steelman this website? Could this | possibly be construed as just a big misunderstanding? | wyager wrote: | > but I read the Wikipedia page on this site and it seems bad | | Full-time Wikipedia editors are pretty much the mortal enemy of | KF users. It is 100% guaranteed that the wikipedia article for | KF is going to make it look as bad as possible. | | > is anyone willing to steelman this website | | I'm not a user, but I've gone on there a few times when it's | come up in the news. It's literally just a website to track the | antics of insane/destructive/etc people on the internet. A lot | of those types of people are terminally online weirdos who are | going to have a lot of influence on twitter, wikipedia, in SV | tech companies, etc. | Takeitalldown wrote: | [deleted] | kache_ wrote: | bullshit corpo speak | | if you're infrastructure, act like it | ShowsAlone wrote: | hkt wrote: | Not working with fascists (yes, really) makes me much happier | about cloudflare. They have their problems but they're not | totally amoral. | dougp1399 wrote: | sroghorhgr wrote: | [deleted] | thepasswordis wrote: | I'll admit I was totally ignorant to this entire situation. In | the last few days I've read through some of the content that KF | was hosting. | | I'll say this: the behavior of the people who are apparently | behind the campaign to get them removed is _abhorrent_. Well | beyond anything I would have imagined in my worst nightmares. | KerrAvon wrote: | You're OK with Kiwifarms killing this person and several others | and being proud of it. Maybe you aren't as ignorant as you | claim? | | https://www.reddit.com/r/retrogaming/comments/o91umv/rip_byu... | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | And that's exactly why they wanted KF deplatformed. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | This is probably a worst case scenario for Cloudflare here. I'm | generally in favor of them and I agree with their abuse policy | they posted the other day. | | But now twice Cloudflare has posted they won't moderate content, | and then two days later done... exactly that while posting that | they don't like doing it. | | For folks concerned about abusive and harmful internet behavior, | Prince has made it clear he doesn't feel responsible to take | action and will avoid doing so as much as possible. And for folks | concerned about free speech and censorship, Prince has made it | clear he can be pushed around with enough pressure (regardless | what the post says, it's how it will be read). | | Cloudflare could've arguably taken either position with some | level of righteousness, but by essentially caving to both, he | proves himself to neither. | Spergy999 wrote: | [deleted] | deepdriver wrote: | > However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, | targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the | point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and | immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen | from Kiwifarms or any other customer before. | | I have been monitoring the Keffals thread on Kiwi Farms. I | haven't seen any real-life threats anywhere close to the extreme | extent Prince mentions. I am very curious if we'll ever get to | know what specific threats were involved here. Perhaps they were | made off-site and attributed to Kiwi Farms. It's possible Kiwi | users were behind such threats, and I'm simply unaware as a new | observer. It's also impossible for me as an observer to tell. | | From what I've seen alone, I think Cloudflare made the wrong | decision. I've summarized what I've seen on Kiwi Farms in recent | comments visible on my profile. They've mostly been aggressively | flagged for some reason. If you have showdead and want a steelman | pro-speech perspective you can read them. | smcl wrote: | > to the extreme extent he mentions | | Hey just FYI - Keffals is "she", so "to the extent _she_ | mentions ". | sroghorhgr wrote: | deepdriver wrote: | I was referring to Matthew Prince, author of the linked | statement. I have edited to clarify this. | | I also believe in immutable biological sex, for the record. | smcl wrote: | Ah come on just own what you said :) | bombcar wrote: | The immediate and credible threats are so credible you ... | can't see them. | happycube wrote: | I read the beginning as "the commercial threat to Cloudflare | from continuing to host Kiwifarms." | | That said, they should've done it a while ago. | darth_avocado wrote: | Kiwi Farms is internet trolls taken to extreme. The harassment | doesn't stay in the virtual world. | https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/15657972205318144... | deepdriver wrote: | crotho wrote: | Kiwi farms has lead to the deaths of multiple people. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Suicides_of_harassm... | octochoron wrote: | deepdriver wrote: | It's a bit more complicated, as I've tried to understand and | explain. This is a case of the worst people on the Internet | fighting. Trans streamers who send sketchy hormones to | underage kids behind parents' backs vs. versus the very worst | trolls from 4chan and 8chan. Doxing and SWATing has been | practiced by both sides. The owner of KF and his mom have | been doxed; two mentally unwell trans women with weapons | showed up on his doorstep. Severe mental illness has | contributed to suicides which one side wants to blame on the | other, rightly or wrongly. I don't fully understand the | history, but what I've seen of the Keffals story has been | alarming. | | The point I've been trying to make is that KF as a platform | at least has strong policies against offline harassment, and | Keffals (their current nemesis) has an extensive documented | history of child-endangering behavior, such as hooking minors | up with life-altering drugs without involving parents or | doctors. If KF users were really behind these SWATings in an | organized way, I'm not sad to see the site gone. I am however | worried that the point about Keffals will be lost, and that | this was in some sense the purpose of the exercise. What this | person was up to on their drug distribution website and | Discord full of sexualized minors is monstrous. | | All the data that was dug up on Keffals has been archived. I | guess it's up to real journalists to take that ball from | here, if any will. | oinwoinfoiw wrote: | Kiwifarms has a strict "do not interact with the people | being discussed" policy. Anyone who does is immediately | scorned for it and often banned. It's not uncommon for | people outside of the forum to swat others and blame it on | the forums, though. | deepdriver wrote: | This is correct, and easily verifiable with a quick look | at the actual website. | | It is also entirely possible that users coordinate | harassment out-of-band. I am unable to tell if this is | what's happening. | alxjrvs wrote: | To be clear, "Drug Distribution Website" is a common | resources list for sourcing HRT when you do not have | supporting medical access to it. This is a far reach from | "Distributing Drugs". | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | [deleted] | pokemod97 wrote: | https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1566153033586810885?s=20&... | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | phillipcarter wrote: | bumbum260 wrote: | subsuboptimal wrote: | Good. Long overdue. | TeeMassive wrote: | Why? | bumbum260 wrote: | subsuboptimal wrote: | Kiwifarms is a site that is implicated in several deaths, | several swattings, and had knowingly hosted videos of, for | example, the Christchurch shooting. | | It is a hotbed for stochastic terrorism. It should be welcome | to exist online, but Cloudflare providing it protection | undermines Cloudflare's own reputation. | TeeMassive wrote: | atdrummond wrote: | ketzerei wrote: | RichardCNormos wrote: | Citation needed. | | Do you have a source that supports the claim that Kiwifarms | is the proximate cause of violence? | subsuboptimal wrote: | London Ontario police department said that Keffals was | the target of swatting. Keffals was doxxed by KF, and the | site has a whole long thread on her. I doubt anyone was | stupid enough to type out, "let's harass her!" But if you | can't connect the dots here you've got your head in the | sand. | donkarma wrote: | MBCook wrote: | The site literally spent its time doxxing people and trying | to get them to commit suicide. | StWallSt wrote: | tsujamin wrote: | cloudflare's servers were hosting and redistributing abusive | material and private information non-consensually leading to | suicides? | | KF is still on the internet, they're free to handle their own | traffic and find a cdn willing to take their (apparently | blatantly neonazi named) operating company's money | timmytokyo wrote: | It's a forum dedicated pretty much entirely to doxxing, | swatting, stalking and harrassment. It's also where the | Christchurch New Zealand mass shooter's live stream and | manifesto were hosted. | atdrummond wrote: | Cyberdog wrote: | It's obviously not the only place they was hosted, or the | place they were originally posted (I think the manifesto | originated from 4chan and the stream would have been Twitch | or YT or some other live-streaming platform - no idea | which). | TeeMassive wrote: | Why do you say the forum itself is "dedicated" to those | things? | | How "hosting" someone posted makes them responsible | considering section 230 and the 1st A? | Barrin92 wrote: | _" It should be noted that no ethically-trained software | engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad | procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead | require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which | Baghdad could be given as a parameter._" | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | Doxxing, yes. But any discussion about harassing people | will get you banned. | tstrimple wrote: | "Here's the personal info on this person that we all hate | and constantly talk shit about. It includes their address | and contact information. We're totally putting this out | here for innocent reasons. We trust you guys won't go | harass these people now because that's against our | rules!" | subsuboptimal wrote: | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | Whatever people do by themselves is their own business. | subsuboptimal wrote: | Why doxx someone unless you are implying a threat of | harassment against them? | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | Why get a website's ddos protection removed unless you're | planning on ddosing it? | gumby wrote: | Used for meatspace attacks on people they didn't like. It had | transitioned to the "sticks and stones" stage. | TeeMassive wrote: | What is your evidence for that? | gumby wrote: | For example: | | https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi- | farms-... | | https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/15657972205318 | 144... | djfobbz wrote: | I've never used CloudFlare but this move just solidified the fact | that I will never use them EVER! Really odd timing too since | "Court Documents reveal Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, | 12 US Agencies Involved In Social Media Censorship Push" news | dropped the same day! | | Reference: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/over-50-biden- | administra... | prvc wrote: | >We are also not taking this action directly because of the | pressure campaign. | | Haven't been following this story, but it seems they haven't | considered that whatever antagonists the site has could have | posted the putatively objectionable content there themselves, due | to the website's nature as a forum for user-generated content. | Furthermore, the article throughout seems to suffer from the | "anthropomorphic fallacy", in failing to acknowledge that it is | speaking about a web service rather than person, and falsely | attributing to it emotions and intentions. | FullyFunctional wrote: | > We have never been their hosting provider | | That is simply not how it works. The bits came from Cloudflare. | Moncefmd wrote: | By that logic, the ISP's host the internet | bumbum260 wrote: | they never were hosting dude | imglorp wrote: | How is hosting == CDN? | jeremyjh wrote: | Well, they store content from the website, and send it over | their network to consumers in response to requests. | CircleSpokes wrote: | That is not how it works both technically and legally. | Providing a reverse proxy is not the same as hosting the | content. | astrange wrote: | Cloudflare is a hosting service. It has R2, workers, etc. | | And a CDN is a hosting service if you push content there and | don't set it to expire. | CircleSpokes wrote: | In this case cloudflare isn't the host though. They have | hosting services but kiwifarms only makes use of their ddos | protection (which is a reverse proxy). That means they | aren't the actual host. | stefan_ wrote: | They are a cache, not some load balancer. To anyone visiting | their site, the difference is immaterial (otherwise, why | would it even matter). | CircleSpokes wrote: | In this case cloudflare was the ddos protection via reverse | proxy. That is different from directly hosting the website. | No backend servers in this case were ever hosted on | clodflare's network. | stefan_ wrote: | You are still talking about proxies. You misunderstand | what Cloudflare was providing, and you are instead | talking about "backend servers hosted on clodflare's | network" as if that was ever their offer. | CircleSpokes wrote: | I'm confused by your comment. The issue here is people | were mad that cloudflare was providing ddos protection | (via reverse proxy). What are you talking about? | tomschwiha wrote: | Did they provide CDN services? Then they store files and I | would interpret that as hosting. | ronsor wrote: | Caching doesn't count as hosting legally. In a literal, | technical sense, sure, it's temporary hosting, but | practically it's not. | prvit wrote: | According to which laws or court decisions? | MBCook wrote: | Except, you know, when they were literally hosting the "site | is down" pages that contained anti-trans jokes. | octochoron wrote: | spoils19 wrote: | Why should we cancel a site due to some harmless jokes? | CircleSpokes wrote: | What are you talking about? Cloudflare didn't host the | website. They provided ddos protection via reverse proxy. | That is different from hosting. | FullyFunctional wrote: | A CDN caches (= stores) the bits they provide. In other | words, they are hosting contents on others behalf. I | can't speak to a legal distinction, but if you torrent | child pornography, I'm pretty sure you aren't going far | with a claim that you were "just a CDN". | CircleSpokes wrote: | I suggest you look into safe harbor laws when it comes to | ISPs. They have very broad protection from the | consequences of their users' actions. | MBCook wrote: | My understanding was they were able to configure a simple | page that was hosted by Cloudflare that was shown | whenever the origin servers were not accessible. They put | a joke about trans suicides on it. | | Once that joke was pointed out on Twitter, it quickly | disappeared. Probably because it was incredibly obviously | against Cloudflare's policies and Cloudflare was the one | hosting it. | abraae wrote: | Every byte that the end user sees came from Cloudflare's | servers. Try making the case that that's not hosting in a | court of law. | CircleSpokes wrote: | That is a very easy case to make in the US. ISPs have | incredibility broad safe harbor laws (even more so when | just providing transit instead of actually hosting like | this case). They have very broad protection from the | consequences of their users' actions. | prvit wrote: | Technically that's literally how it works. | | Legally? Do you have evidence to support that theory? | CircleSpokes wrote: | >Technically that's literally how it works. | | No it is not. Kiwifarms backend server isn't on | cloudflare's network. When the backend server sends you | some bits it hands them off to cloudflare since cloudflare | is the reverse proxy ddos protection. In this case | cloudflare is acting as a transit provider instead of | directly hosting the backend server. | | >Legally? Do you have evidence to support that theory? | | Look up safe harbor laws in relation to ISPs. They have | very broad legal protection when it comes to situations | like this. | prvit wrote: | > Kiwifarms backend server isn't on cloudflare's network | | What does that even mean in practice? If you only host | the php forum frontend but mysql runs at another DC then | you're also not hosting the backend, right? | | Cloudflare was hosting Kiwifarms even if they weren't | hosting the backend. | | > Look up safe harbor laws in relation to ISPs. They have | very broad legal protection when it comes to situations | like this. | | And those same laws don't apply to someone just renting | out dedicated servers? | | If you know more than me, perhaps you can explain to me | how e.g. US law differentiates between a DC renting out | dedicated servers and Cloudflare? | bitwize wrote: | The network interprets hate as noise and filters it out. | 0cVlTeIATBs wrote: | The original quote will likely be the more accurate one. | krapp wrote: | [deleted] | alexb_ wrote: | >Kiwifarms itself will most likely find other infrastructure that | allows them to come back online, as the Daily Stormer and 8chan | did themselves after we terminated them. And, even if they don't, | the individuals that used the site to increasingly terrorize will | feel even more isolated and attacked and may lash out further. | There is real risk that by taking this action today we may have | further heightened the emergency. | | Yeah no shit, of course this is going to happen. It's clearly | just a way to save face from Cloudflare - though they definitely | needed to do it as this problem was never going to go away for | them if they didn't. The entire point of the internet is to be | uncensorable, and that's not going to change with them dropping | KiwiFarms. As terrible of a website as it is, it's just going to | come back up with a provider that has even lower moral standards | than Cloudflare. | Cyberdog wrote: | > this problem was never going to go away for them if they | didn't. | | Sure it was. Another week or two and the angry people would | have got bored and moved on to some other outrage. | | Instead they have been shown that the infrastructure of the | internet will bend to their will if they make enough noise. | | Good job, CF. | bitwize wrote: | > The entire point of the internet is to be uncensorable, | | It's not the 1990s anymore. Hate is becoming increasingly | unwelcome on the network, and that includes white-shoe hate | that directly threatens marginalized communities (e.g., race-IQ | pseudocience, "gender-critical feminism"). _Lives are on the | line._ | erpart wrote: | google234123 wrote: | So gender-critical feminism should be treated the same way as | nazies? It's literally a protected philosophy in the UK. | | https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender- | critical-... | | What you are advocating for is complete censorship. | tsujamin wrote: | > The entire point of the internet is to be uncensorable | | I find this interesting, is this the point of the internet, Or | is this a personal value or feature people overlay on the | internet? At a history/protocol level I'd be pressed to say the | internet was designed to be uncensorsble, fault tolerant | perhaps at best | fabianhjr wrote: | > The entire point of the internet is to be uncensorable | | That isn't the point, the internet protocol is designed as a | distributed networking system that was adopted by corporations; | if you want censorship resistance or privacy that isn't part of | that specific protocol. (For example check alternatives such a | CJDNS, GNUnet, Yggdrasil, etc; or application-layer protocols | such as I2P/TOR) | | Additionally the Internet Protocol is not resistant to | intermediation. (Or in the words of the P2P Foundiation: it is | not counter-anti-desintermediation: | https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti- | Disintermediatio...) | | > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory | visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more | mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the | consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need | to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. | Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating | platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist | investors dictating that communications systems be designed to | capture profit. | balentio wrote: | oh_really_A wrote: | devwastaken wrote: | Cloudflare would do better to simply stop making posts every time | they do something. Every other company bans users every day and | have learned to stop talking about it. Or the inverse. Regardless | of what cloudflare does, right or wrong, there will be mobs of | people responding negatively and positively to it. People love | drama. | | If their policy was "we'll ban anyone we want for whatever | reason." I'd respect that more because that's the truth. | | Further troubling is how this is over what they believe to be | illigal conduct. It may very well be, but now they're creating a | precedent that they are capable of detecting and stopping it | themselves outside the justice system. | | This also doesn't stop kiwifarms or it's organizers. If there's | illigal conduct, or even civil discovery, CF has to give up those | details. All stopping Ddos support does is allows kiwifarms to | receive Ddos. | | No doubt they'll eventually take to tor and that doesn't have a | good physical address to serve warrants to. | nazgulsenpai wrote: | Their transparency actually makes me sympathetic to the weight | of the decisions they're making. Their acknowledgement that it | could make things worse is also very honest and refreshing. I | hope they continue making these posts especially since they | control such a massive percentage of internet infrastructure. | debacle wrote: | I adore Cloudflare for making this post. It shows they have a | true commitment to taking freedom of expression about as far as | they can. | hombre_fatal wrote: | > We are also not taking this action directly because of the | pressure campaign. | | Given their principled stand just two days ago, this sounds like | a pretty weak "haha we totally don't cave to pressure, it's just | coincidence, so don't think pressure campaigns work on us!" | | Has Cloudflare proactively blocked any websites without a | pressure campaign? | orf wrote: | Pretty crazy turnaround. I really liked the pretty clear and | reasoned abuse policy[1] they put out recently, and I don't envy | the position they are in. On one hand, yes, this specific site is | terrible. But they are trying _very_ hard to _not_ become the | arbiters of what is terrible and what isn 't terrible, and I | respect them for that. | | It's not an easy line to take, and other companies like Google | and Facebook have not made that same choice to stay neutral. | | > Some argue that we should terminate these services to content | we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock | it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world | that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes | of people who do not possess sufficient moral character | | 1. https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies- | and-a... | prvit wrote: | > I really liked the pretty clear and reasoned abuse policy[1] | | Except it's neither. The way they try to brand their caching | reverse proxy as only a "security service" instead of a | "hosting service" is absurd and not based on any well reasoned | logic. | jacooper wrote: | How ? They aren't hosting the server and aren't hosting the | backend itself. | phillipcarter wrote: | I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as | _very neutral_ and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. | because you choose not to do business with them. | cowtools wrote: | I genuinely believe that it's entirely possible to be seen as | _very neutral_ and also just ban anyone I disagree with or | who even just annoys me. | mschuster91 wrote: | Being _neutral_ with Nazis is supporting them, period. We | 've seen in 1933-45 where staying neutral or appeasing them | leads to. | | Nazis need to be fought everywhere, otherwise their | cancerous ideology just grows. | inawarminister wrote: | I agree with you, we also see the same WRT communists. | | Murderous antiquated ideologies should be eradicated from | the modern world. | mschuster91 wrote: | Communists are no longer a threat anywhere outside the | PRC and North Korea. | inawarminister wrote: | And the Nazis...? In both cases, the problem is latent | inside our societies. The dam bursts and revolutionary | fervor appear until checked away. Not until a large | amount of innocent victims. | | PRC is state capitalist as well, rhetoric | notwithstanding. They even needed to purge their Marxists | a few years back. | seneca wrote: | > also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. because you | choose not to do business with them. | | This is literally the opposite of neutral. | | I don't get this constant need for mental gymnastics. Just | say you believe in censorship. | subsuboptimal wrote: | There can be limits on speech and free speech. There are | many places where we've agreed there should be limits on | speech, for instance it's illegal to lie under oath, or to | threaten someone with physical harm, or to falsely | advertise. | | It's not black and white. | timmytokyo wrote: | Is it censorship? Or freedom of association? | Test0129 wrote: | Tremendous difference between refusing service and taking | their money and blocking them. One of them is acceptable for | a private business, one of them is fraud. | | If I was kiwifarms I'd be suing for services not rendered and | tie them up court for as long as I could. They're huge, so | they're guaranteed to settle. Easy money. | jackson1442 wrote: | Are they taking KF money? CF DDoS protection is free. | jacooper wrote: | Are they a paying customer in the first place? | scrollaway wrote: | "Neutral", maybe, but their stance goes beyond neutral. They | clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". HNers should | appreciate this more, as it's often a recurring theme here to | talk about ISPs as infrastructure. | | Infrastructure doesn't privately discriminate, _period_. | Water /Electricity utilities don't cut the supply to rapists | and terrorists just because they're rapists and terrorists. | They cut it when law enforcement ask them to. | | This conflicting discussion is better had on this level: | "Should Cloudflare be considered infrastructure, or not?". | It's not straightforward. | phillipcarter wrote: | > They clearly position themselves as "infrastructure". | HNers should appreciate this more, as it's often a | recurring theme here to talk about ISPs as infrastructure. | | That's trying to have cake and eat it too. I am highly | sympathetic to operating like infrastructure, and I would | _love_ to see regulatory bodies take this up as an issue to | try and figure out. What I am _not_ sympathetic to is | having a documented history of _not_ acting like a utility, | but then puffing up chests and saying that they are a | utility only when it happens to serve them. | OrangeMonkey wrote: | Its so weird how everyone we don't like is a nazi. | | Your opinion appears to be popular though. Through enough | pressure we have successfully removed ddos protection from a | site that people on here hope gets ddos'ed. | | One day, this conversation and this thread will be | remembered. How there was a period where everyone celebrated | corporations silencing individuals or allowing mobs to ddos | them. What happened to our internet. | skissane wrote: | > and also just ban nazi sites, troll farms, etc. | | Question: How many nazi sites, troll farms, etc, is | Cloudflare _still_ providing services to? I bet you the | answer is not zero. | | We can debate the merits of a consistently applied policy of | "we won't provide our services to nazis/racists/trolls/etc" - | but it doesn't appear that is Cloudflare's actual policy. | | It appears their actual policy is "we will happily provide | services to anybody, nazis/racists/trolls/etc included - | until the social media heat gets too hot for us to handle, at | which point we will drop the individual site which is the | target of that controversy, but continue offering our | services to all the other sites like it" | ThaDuke wrote: | Zerkes wrote: | [deleted] | mkl95 wrote: | This is one of those problems where if you cut off one head two | more will grow back. Even if Kiwifarms was shut down completely, | there may be dozens of spinoffs being created at the moment. If | this problem is ever solved, the solution will have little to do | with technology. | [deleted] | Test0129 wrote: | Actually terrifying. | | Regardless of the content or how bad it was it's what this | represents that is terrifying. It's simple to always laugh and | say "good" when obvious bad actors are effected. Hell, domestic | spying and drone strikes "only effected bad people". Right up | until they didn't. | | To allow a single company, government, etc the _ability_ to | exercise total control is a dangerous thing. I 've long waited | for cloudflare to overstep their governance and start censorship. | Surely, we will see many more websites go down now that pandora's | box is open. Maybe it will even swing with the tides of whoever | is in power, or whoever in congress is getting their palms | greased. | | Instead of simply turning off their service and sending them | packing the letter appears to imply kiwifarm will continue to pay | for their services until they move. This is censorship, and | kiwifarms could have an unironic day in court over it. At the | very least, they will be able to sue cloudflare for services not | provided. | | EDIT: Will one of the crybullies please reply to my post to tell | me where I am wrong other than "kiwifarms bad" before downvoting | me. | chrisan wrote: | Didn't downvote but a single company is not going to control | this. They will be back with someone else. | MBCook wrote: | They've lost numerous hosts already. Very few companies want | to be associated with this kind of thing. So as they were | discovered they tend to get dropped. | | They can keep trying all they want. There are surely people | who are willing to work with them. | | But no one is REQUIRED to help them. | stevemk14ebr wrote: | There's a logical fallacy called the slippery slope. It's not | an effective thinking strategy. Cloudflare simply chose not to | protect a site full of bullies. As is their right. They hardly | silenced anyone. | pelorat wrote: | KW is not blocked, they are just not hidden behind a CDN | anymore. | smcl wrote: | I don't think you quite understand how awful Kiwi Farms is | Test0129 wrote: | I legitimately don't care. | brighamyoung wrote: | Not even about racism and white nationalism? | ThaDuke wrote: | schleck8 wrote: | Then speak for yourself and don't equate your disinterest | to any moral standard. | makeee wrote: | How is this censorship? They are a company and can do business | with whoever they please. They are drawing the line at imminent | threats to human life. The site has already led to the deaths | of multiple people: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Suicides_of_harassm... | philswift wrote: | donkarma wrote: | snausages wrote: | When/where was it disproven that Near died? | donkarma wrote: | tstrimple wrote: | Somehow it's Freedom when a company refuses to make a cake | for a gay couple, but Tyranny if a company providing hosting | and DDOS protection services decide not to work with a | company who explicitly violates their terms of service. | [deleted] | subsuboptimal wrote: | Drone strikes and domestic spying have always had huge literal | and figurative blast radiuses. Ask someone who is on the no fly | list because they have the exceedingly common name of Mohammad. | | Comparing the removal of 3 sites, all associated with terrorism | and lone wolves, from one commercial provider to the atrocity | that is imperial US might is an absurd juxtaposition. | [deleted] | crazytalk wrote: | BgSpnnrs wrote: | pelorat wrote: | Sansos wrote: | dougp1399 wrote: | smcl wrote: | This wasn't "larping drama" - KF members went to pretty severe | lengths to not just dox people but to show up at their houses | and SWAT them etc. | donkarma wrote: | [deleted] | balentio wrote: | That is a law enforcement warrant matter--not a cloudflare | policing matter. | StWallSt wrote: | Ekaros wrote: | I hope this sort of action makes Cloudflare to lose any sort of | legal protections it has and being fully responsible for any and | all content hosted on their servers. They choose to be a | publisher. Let legal system to treat them as one then. I'm all | for jailing any and all workers there for what ever offence they | distribute. | Icathian wrote: | There were no good choices for Cloudflare here, and everyone | across the internet who jams their fingers in their ears and | shouts their position repeatedly is just contributing to the | problem. | | Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of free | speech in our society. They are forced into that position by | woefully inadequate governance by legal authorities operating | multiple decades behind the current landscape. | | Given that they should never be in this position, Cloudflare is | choosing between "platforming the bad guys" and "censoring free | speech". They have navigated this imperfectly, but have done | better than most would, I think. | | I truly hope that those unsatisfied with this outcome (which I | suspect will be literally everybody) can take this as an | opportunity to go help pressure their respective governments to | figure out what the hell should be done, systematically, about | hate speech on the internet. It's only 25 years overdue at this | point. | DennisAleynikov wrote: | Yeah there was no winning move here. The pressure from both | sides was too great | bjustin wrote: | I think Cloudlfare's choice to block them is fine and CF was | probably fine allowing their use of the service before, given | the damage to their reputation they apparently considered | acceptable. | | Historically, you needed money or influence or both to make a | "bad" (or in this case, actually bad) message widely available. | What we're seeing with Cloudflare and other companies choosing | not to do business with some people is like a correction a bit | back toward the past, after an hard swing toward unchecked, | potentially widespread reach of speakers who wouldn't have been | heard much before. | phillipcarter wrote: | > I truly hope that those unsatisfied with this outcome (which | I suspect will be literally everybody) can take this as an | opportunity to go help pressure their respective governments to | figure out what the hell should be done, systematically, about | hate speech on the internet. It's only 25 years overdue at this | point. | | This is a very good takeaway, as it is a complex problem. But I | think in the interim, it's perfectly fine for private companies | with no legal obligation to keep sites like these operating to | just choose not to do business with them. | tibbydudeza wrote: | The problem is who defines what is hate - don't trust a govt to | make that - they are the last people I would trust. | | We have no solution in this age - it was easy in the older days | when consensus was reached within a village on what was bad for | the community and you got either got tarred and feathered or | thrown out. | donohoe wrote: | Private companies should not be the de facto moderators | of free speech | | Hate speech and organizing to harass and other IRL hate acts is | not 'free speech'. That was the major point. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Hate speech and organizing to harass and other IRL gate | acts is not free speech_ | | "Free speech" is a philosophy. It makes no sense to describe | a particular expression of speech as free or not. Hate speech | is speech. Whether one should be free to make it is another | question. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | KerrAvon wrote: | This strategy will not ultimately survive contact with law | enforcement. They need to stop doxxing. | millzlane wrote: | Spreading rumors about them and interacting with friends, | family, and known associates is fair game. Also posting | their public contact information is also fair game. | robocat wrote: | I presume users on kiwifarms (KF) use | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction | techniques to publish private information elsewhere (such | as private addresses) so that the information can then | legally be reposted on KF. Coordination-of-information | has an accomplice role in some of the illegal activities | "reported" by KF. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | I will admit the lengths KF users go to dox people is | pretty ridiculous. | bb010g wrote: | I see that policy works extremely well in cases like | <https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1566153033586810885>. | As long as you give all the information necessary for | someone interested to interact in a harmful way, it's fine, | but you have to frame it in a way that doesn't suggest | harassment. Just speculate about all the locations they | could possibly be having lunch, and trust that nobody will | harass them. | Icathian wrote: | I do think, if there was competent legal governance in this | space, that's the conclusion they would have reached. I think | you understand my larger point, regardless. | cowtools wrote: | >Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly | regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to | freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate | speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. | Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would | qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally | protected free speech under the First Amendment. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat. | .. | schleck8 wrote: | We know. US Americans have made very loud and clear they | tolerate hooked crosses and Nazi shouts in their streets, | everyone has seen those images by now. | spoils19 wrote: | Look at the economy of countries who censor similar | things and tell me who's on top. | anigbrowl wrote: | _The economy of Germany is a highly developed social | market economy.[24] It has the largest national economy | in Europe, the fourth-largest by nominal GDP in the | world, and fifth by GDP (PPP). In 2017, the country | accounted for 28% of the euro area economy according to | the International Monetary Fund (IMF).[25]_ | | Looks OK | lovich wrote: | The EU has a similar population size, wide censorship | laws for this kinda of conduct, and a similar economy | size. China has a similar economy and must stricter | speech laws. The US isn't economically special because of | free speech | schleck8 wrote: | Sure, California. | | https://www.statista.com/chart/9358/us-gdp-by-state-and- | regi... | | https://www.jta.org/2022/06/02/united- | states/a-california-ha... | unethical_ban wrote: | We tolerate it legally, but a majority of society | certainly does not tolerate it morally nor agree with the | content. | spacephysics wrote: | What is hate speech? | Hamuko wrote: | Yes it is. Freedom of speech is the principle of being able | to express your ideas and opinions. And hate speech is just | that. | | Obviously no country has absolute freedom of speech, but for | example the First Amendment has no hate speech exemptions. | anigbrowl wrote: | Hate speech is often about saying other people ought not be | able to express their ideas and opinions, and that the most | effective way to bring about this result is for them to not | be not alive any more. | | Eliminationist rhetoric is a subset of hate speech overall, | but it certainly exists and is trivially easy to discover. | It's odd to me that none of the self-professed 'free speech | absolutists' ever seems to engage with this point. | google234123 wrote: | To be fair, there is the entire concept of cancel culture | which basically is all about organizing to harass people and | is basically supported by every large platform. | lovich wrote: | canceling someone is about their professional or political | connections. Kiwifarms eggs people on to kill their | targets. They are not equivalent | topynate wrote: | It is in America, for the most part. You can absolutely | organize to harass people if the harassment is in the form of | verbal abuse, for instance. Cloudflare is saying that | something happened in the last few days on KF that was a | genuine "emergency". I don't think this is just an excuse, | actually - Price seems unusually committed to honesty about | this sort of thing. I presume people were organizing specific | violent acts on KF, which is not "free speech" even in | America. | nostrebored wrote: | Completely conjecture. Why do you assume good will from | companies? | oldgradstudent wrote: | If hate speech is not free speech, then they who define what | is hate speech, define what you can or cannot say. | | If there's defamation, harassment, or incitement to violence, | we should deal with that in an open court with juries of our | peers, not in some dark board room. | jchw wrote: | The problem isn't that nobody understands that free speech is | not limitless, the problem is that literally nobody wants to | be in the business of defining the exact boundaries of | allowed speech and how to enforce it; there is no perfect | answer. Cloudflare was taking the position that it's not | their job, and they're not alone as far as internet services | go. There are, in fact, other _hosts_ that do basically the | same thing, see Nearlyfreespeech for example. | | My point isn't to weigh in on this specific decision, but I | want the rhetoric around this stuff to evolve away from | pretending that defining the boundaries of what speech should | be protected is super easy and objective. It's really not, | and it never will be. | dagmx wrote: | Is it censoring free speech when the goal of the speech is to | actively harm people? I'm not sure of any nation that has no | caveats to their idea of free speech | spacephysics wrote: | Calls for acts of violence already hasn't been legal. Hate | speech is outside of that scope, otherwise we wouldn't have | another term for that (all calls for violence could be hate | speech, but not all hate speech is calls for violence) | | Therefore what is hate speech? Are words violence in and of | themselves? | Hamuko wrote: | > _Calls for acts of violence already hasn't been legal._ | | Pretty sure calls for acts of violence is legal in the | United States unless that call for violence is intended to | produce an imminent lawless action. | notriddle wrote: | > unless that call for violence is intended to produce an | imminent lawless action | | So it's fine to call for violence, as long as the | violence in question would be legal if it were acted | upon? | | That makes so much sense, it seems like it would go | without saying. If the violent act itself was legal (like | a war, or an organized boxing match), why wouldn't it be | legal to solicit or petition for it? | Hamuko wrote: | > _So it's fine to call for violence, as long as the | violence in question would be legal if it were acted | upon?_ | | No. It's fine to call for violence as long as your call | is not designed to provoke and cause imminent lawless | action. Brandenburg advocated for "revengeance" against | the government if their demands were not met, and that | was protected speech. Hess v. Indiana also affirms that | advocating for lawless action is protected speech. | nixgeek wrote: | https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 | | Not entirely sure you're correct on this one? | Ferrotin wrote: | Calls for violence are legal in the United States. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Is declining to participate by re-transmitting such speech | even censorship? You can't force a company to take you as a | customer, being a shit head isn't a protected class. | dagmx wrote: | Agreed, being dropped from cloud flare isn't censorship. | It's refusing to actively provide resources to them in | their pursuit to harm people. | worldofmatthew wrote: | CLoudflare makes it nearly impossible to operate without | a large network by knownly allowing DDOS-for-Hire | services to illegally use its services. | nightski wrote: | Also agreed, but I think in some ways there are a few | companies that have too much control or influence over | the internet as a whole. | angrycontrarian wrote: | ksrm wrote: | Precisely. Is targeted harassment free speech? More so than | it limits the speech of others? | mjr00 wrote: | > There were no good choices for Cloudflare here | | 100%. To me this isn't really about KF (which clearly sucks and | should be offline, but through actual legal processes), this is | a matter of, "When does internet infrastructure end and content | moderation begin?" As I mentioned in a previous discussion[0], | Cloudflare finds itself right at the blurred edge of this line, | made more complicated by CF providing both hosting, which is | generally seen as content, and DDOS mitigation, which is more | ambiguous. | | The same people who cheer this decision wouldn't be happy if, | say, DNS servers refused to resolve mega.io because it hosts | illegal pornography. Or if their ISP started blocking PTP or | nyaa.si for copyright infringement. This is to say nothing, of | course, of any suspect political interference in internet | infrastructure, which we already see around the world[1]. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32664488 | | [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/pakistans-former-pm-khan- | say... | cowtools wrote: | I think the internet is just irrecoverably broken in a way such | that technical problems like DDoS or NN escalate to social | problems. We should not even be having these discussions in the | first place: It should be infeasible for attackers to conduct | DDoS. It should be infeasible for ISPs to surveil their users. | The internet as we know it was designed to facilitate | communications between non-antagonistic peers, that design is | no longer suitable for use by democratic society at large. | | https://secushare.org/broken-internet | austenallred wrote: | The notion that government should be in charge of effectively | eliminating speech we don't like so that private companies | don't have to is _far worse_ than the current state of things. | hbrundage wrote: | It's a fundamental issue though -- there's no "figuring it out" | that a government can do that won't either censor or | facilitate. 25 years has been long enough to find tactical | policy changes that make it easier, but there aren't any, which | is why nothing has happened. The choice we have to make is | either de-shrine free speech above all else or entrench hatred, | and it's bogus that we haven't picked the thing that doesn't | kill people yet. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _de-shrine free speech above all else or entrench hatred_ | | False dichotomy. We have always punished some speech ( _e.g._ | fraud) while sanctifying others (political speech). | hbrundage wrote: | Practical dichotomy -- that's why this thread exists. You | either platform it or you don't, and you're either | legislated to do so or not. What middle ground do you see | that allows this degree of free speech without platforming | hate? | krapp wrote: | The middle ground that already exists - the right of free | speech doesn't guarantee an audience, and the right to | assembly doesn't guarantee a platform. Censorship is | permitted within the marketplace of ideas as an | inevitable consequence of the fact that coerced speech | cannot be considered free, but the government is far more | limited. | | If Kiwifarms wants to continue "this degree of free | speech" it's up to them to find someone willing to | tolerate their bullshit. | ketzerei wrote: | krapp wrote: | > The choice we have to make is either de-shrine free speech | above all else or entrench hatred, and it's bogus that we | haven't picked the thing that doesn't kill people yet. | | Most of us never enshrined free speech above all else. It was | never controversial that free speech had limits, that sites | had the right to moderate content and ban accounts, or that | businesses could refuse service to anyone. Prior to 2016, | something like this would not have even been newsworthy. | nostrebored wrote: | Government censorship doesn't kill people? | | Painting this issue as black and white is just wrong. Both | sides have immense ramifications for the world. | Accountability for censoring bodies and people on these | platforms is not easily solved. | creddit wrote: | "Moderators of free speech" - an interesting idea. | serverholic wrote: | The government shouldn't do anything about hate speech. Full | stop. | tarakat wrote: | But it _should_ do something about how 2-3 giant corporations | have become effective gatekeepers of online speech. | zaphar wrote: | On the one hand, I would have supported Cloudflare in | continuing to provide service to Kiwifarms as someone not | employed there if that was their conviction. | | On the other hand, If I were the CEO, Owner, whatever of | Cloudflare I would have cut ties with kiwifarms a long time ago | on the grounds the site promotes truly immoral and | reprehensible content and I wouldn't want any resources I | control going toward helping them do so for my own conscience | to be at ease. | ketzerei wrote: | ksrm wrote: | Not just immoral and reprehensible, the campaigns of targeted | harassment they undertake limit the victims' speech. If you | care about people being able to freely express themselves, | today is a good day. I don't know why the free speech | defenders miss this (I do know). | colechristensen wrote: | >Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of | free speech in our society. They are forced into that position | by woefully inadequate governance by legal authorities | operating multiple decades behind the current landscape. | | When you have an algorithm that suggests things to people, you | are a de facto publisher and whatever you do, you're choosing | what to promote. In that case you have a responsibility to | choose wisely, though it is a hard problem. Hard enough that in | many cases algorithmic suggestions need to be avoided. | | When you are a specialist with few customers there's no problem | with picking who you work with. | | When you provide infrastructure for large numbers of | organizations though, you must be very hesitant to moderate who | you serve, for many reasons. For the most part, if what you're | serving doesn't break laws in jurisdictions you respect, they | should be left to operate as they will. There is a narrow band | around that of "maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't". There | are real problems with expanding this to moderate the topic of | shouting for the day. | notriddle wrote: | > When you have an algorithm that suggests things to people, | you are a de facto publisher and whatever you do, you're | choosing what to promote. | | But CloudFlare _doesn't_. That's why they position themselves | as a common carrier. | [deleted] | tenpies wrote: | > figure out what the hell should be done, systematically, | about hate speech on the internet. | | I honestly wish there were some organization focused on the | causes of hate speech rather than censoring hate speech. | | What caused this? Why are Kiwifarm users so hateful? One does | not just hate out of the blue, especially not to the degree of | the actions they've taken (judging from their Wikipedia | article). | | Then there's the other end of this: To walk a thorny world, | don't pave the world, wear sandals. | | How can anyone be harassed online to end their life? Were there | not enough settings, blocklists, and such to keep the | harassment away? Were they unable to access the services that | would have helped them better handle the harassment that did | get through? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _How can anyone be harassed online to the degree that there | were not enough settings_ | | They were showing up at peoples' houses and SWATting them. | This isn't a problem technology can solve. | fallingupwards wrote: | tenpies wrote: | I don't think technology even has a role to play here. | After all, hate speech began the minute we developed | language. | scythe wrote: | >However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, | targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the | point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and | immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen | from Kiwifarms or any other customer before. | | If this is true, couldn't they be a little more descriptive? What | happened _in the last 48 hours_ that hasn 't been happening for | the last eight years? | serf wrote: | >The policy we articulated last Wednesday remains our policy. | | >have our cake and eat it too. | | I don't get this corporate reverse speak. | | They literally went against the policies stated on Wednesday and | then plainly say "But this violation of that policy doesn't | reflect on our policies overall." | | I get that Kiwifarms is hated, that doesn't make black turn to | white and up turn to down. | | Cloudflare reneged on everything they said Wednesday, there isn't | two ways about it. | | They are self-stated as 'internet infrastructure', and this is | definitely a censorship tactic. | | It looks like it's time for a government to step in with over- | sight, since they want to be an infrastructure player. | MBCook wrote: | As I remember the policy they posted had exceptions for sites | that were dangerous/etc. I think what they did today is | completely consistent. | | What I DON'T get is why they didn't think the site was | dangerous last week. When I read their policy it seems to | clearly state they wouldn't work with a group like kiwifarms, | and yet they posted a whole post explaining why they were. | | I agree it's a flip-flop, I guess I see it from the other side. | spamizbad wrote: | KF swatted a member of congress, which is technically new | territory for them. Cloudflare lobbies congress. | xboxnolifes wrote: | I think Cloudflare did think it was a dangerous site, but | they would really prefer not having the responsibility of | being the arbiter of what can and cannot be hosted, as well | as all of the negative publicity that comes with being so. At | the same time, I believe they believe that current legal | process surrounding how things like this are handles are so | woefully underdeveloped that turning a blind eye is not being | neutral, it's being irresponsible. | | Taking downs sites like this hurts the view of infrastructure | neutrality, so I'm sure it's not done lightly, even when | someone goes against their policy. | dangrossman wrote: | They listed that exception for their hosting services, while | saying there would be no such exception when it comes to | security services. | | https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies- | and-a... | prvc wrote: | >It looks like it's time for a government to step in with over- | sight | | Which government on Earth is going to enforce a principle of | neutrality instead of its own particular censorship agenda? | anigbrowl wrote: | _We are also not taking this action directly because of the | pressure campaign._ | | Oh, guess it's those one of those Cloudflare Coincidences (tm). | OrangeMonkey wrote: | Cloudflare blocks kiwifarms. | | The crowds at Hacker News filled with technologists cheers - | Hooray, a website we do not like has its ddos protection taken | down. | | I do so deeply wonder for what reason so many people were hoping | they would remove the ddos protection. I am sure its a stumper. | | I, for one, do hope the FBI finds people involved in ddos'ing | websites and they are given their day in court. I also hope that | it won't be people from HN or this thread - but I bet there will | be. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | There are no bad tactics only bad targets. | worldofmatthew wrote: | Cloudflare bans websites for unproven claims but is perfectly | happy to provide protection for ddos-for-hire websites that so | happen to help their bottom line by generating a reason for | people to use DDOS protection for which Cloudflare is one of very | few options that does not have a fixed limit. | | Cloudflare has to be in bed with the US government, otherwise it | would have been shutdown for ignoring illegal activity (ddos-for- | hire) that's been reported to them (aka ignoring complaints is | meant to remove your S.230 protection). | Cyberdog wrote: | They muffed it. They were proving to the world how reliable they | could be and repairing the damage from the Stormfront debacle, | and again they just showed how prone to caving to pressure they | can be. What a joke. | | I will never use CF for anything I want kept online in the face | of angry people. | [deleted] | schleck8 wrote: | spamizbad wrote: | I'm guessing KF members organizing the swatting a US | congresswoman (albeit a controversial one) was probably the | straw the broke the camel's back. Hard to lobby congress (Which | Cloudflare does) when you protect a forum actively swats its | members. | redballoon6 wrote: | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | So you just unquestioningly believe everything you read | online, huh? | atdrummond wrote: | Neither KF nor its members swatted MTG. It was absolutely | done to place blame on KF and doesn't even comport with the | image those who dislike the site paint - that KF is a | radical, right wing forum designed to harass minorities and | political opponents. | Cyberdog wrote: | Prove your accusation, please. That the person that made that | call not only said they were KF, but a certain account from | KF, should be evidence to anyone who thinks about it for two | seconds that that was almost certainly a false flag. | paulryanrogers wrote: | For those not in the know what makes the StormFront situation | such a debacle and how is it similar? | schleck8 wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) | Cyberdog wrote: | Both times, people organized a social media campaign to try | to get CF to drop services for a site they disliked, and both | times CF first refused in the interest of free speech, safe | harbor, let law enforcement handle it, etc, then flipped like | a switch and dropped their services when the mob didn't go | away fast enough. | | Now you can hate Stormfront's message (I do), and you can | hate what people are allowed to say and do on Kiwi Farms, and | in that light you can feel that CF's actions are just fine. | But just be aware that if _your_ site becomes the next pariah | of the internet some way or some how, CF is prone to drop | your services as well. | | And it's their right to do so, of course, but the way they're | saying stuff like "The policies we articulated last Wednesday | remain our policies" and that this is a special case are | rather ridiculous. How many more times will this happen | before it stops being a particularly special case? | ketzo wrote: | "Hate the message" is a huge oversimplification. | | People don't want Stormfront gone for aesthetic reasons. | They want Stormfront and similar sites gone _because they | encourage physical violence against certain peoples._ | | It is, IMO, a _huge_ strawman to say that people just | "don't like" these sites. | ketzo wrote: | The Stormfront decision is, IMO, not remotely a debacle and | much more easily defensivly. | | Stormfront was _hosted_ using Cloudflare, and Cloudflare gave | them the boot. | | If you are not familiar with Stormfront, they actively | promote violent white supremacy and Nazi ideologies. | donkarma wrote: | 71bw wrote: | ffwszgf wrote: | Cloudflare can do whatever it wants but I wish they were honest | about it. | | The claim that there has been some "dangerous escalation" in the | past 2 weeks is nonsense. If anything the owner has been | monitoring the thread more proactively and making sure people | follow the law. This is included not allowing the creation of new | accounts and reminding everyone that their data will be turned | over to the authorities should it be requested. | | The only thing that picked up steam in the last two weeks is the | campaign to drop Cloudflare and the media attention on the | situation. That's why they caved in. It got big enough to reach | Bloomberg/wsj/congress. Just be honest about it. | scythe wrote: | They didn't say that there was "dangerous escalation" in the | past two weeks. They said that there was a pressure campaign | over the last two weeks, and they also said that they didn't | want to comply with this campaign. | | They, crucially, said that there was dangerous escalation over | the past 48 hours, i.e., since Thursday. Given that most of us | have jobs, we might not have noticed. But _what changed in 48 | hours_ that led Cloudflare to contact law enforcement? | dmix wrote: | 100% they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. First | you pretend you care about free speech for a week and | gesticulate in public. Then you come up with some extraordinary | circumstance so it doesn't seem like it's the new normal. | crazytalk wrote: | slothsarecool wrote: | Just adding some light to the escalations; there were bomb and | shoot threats over the last few days. The userbase on the site | upped the tone of their "jokes"/threats after the last blog | post and thats what caused the final suspension. | altcognito wrote: | > The claim that there has been some "dangerous escalation" in | the past 2 weeks is nonsense. | | I don't believe you have the same information as cloudflare and | assuming good faith I believe them when they say there are | legitimate threats to body and person. | | They have a responsibility to their investors to insure that | their brand isn't used to coordinate violence. | | Dont just shrug your shoulders while a small group invites | violence because "that's just too bad" We all have a | responsibility to discern what is valuable speech and what is | corrosive. Mentally ill people exist, and they are more than | happy to use these forums, and they are often used in these | forums as tools. | trasz wrote: | Cloudflare are known bad actors, | https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32705613. There's no | reason to assume good faith here. | wyager wrote: | > I don't believe you have the same information as cloudflare | | Yes he does - the activity of KF posters is public. | | The amount of bullshitting going on here is insane. People | are just making things up wholesale. | dmix wrote: | Then they should provide at least some basic details. | Trusting them to be honest is silly. This sort of thing needs | transparency. | jyrkesh wrote: | > I don't believe you have the same information as cloudflare | and assuming good faith I believe them when they say there | are legitimate threats to body and person. | | I don't believe that Cloudflare gathered the same volume of | info that many others have about KF. OP's point is that | behavior as bad or worse than what's been going on (yes, | including super detailed doxxing, swatting, death threats, | and the like) have all been going on for YEARS on KF, and | Cloudflare paid no mind until a larger campaign got going. | | Full disclosure: I'm actually disappointed that they made the | decision to cut them off. Not because I'm pro-KF at ALL, it | is absolutely abhorrent. But I do tend to peruse extremist | circles on both sides to understand the radicalism a little | better, and generally think that keeping these folks | relegated to unseen areas is net-negative. | | But to the original point, I think it's disingenuous to | suggest that this decision wasn't primarily catalyzed by the | PR calculus of more people being in the "shut it down" camp | than the "leave it up" camp (which makes sense to me, as soon | as the spotlight is cast, most people are going to say it's | disgusting and should be taken down). | digitaLandscape wrote: | oinwoinfoiw wrote: | 345435345435 wrote: | nilsbunger wrote: | Seems to me it would be better for Cloudflare to keep serving | Kiwifarms, and cooperate with government requests for access logs | / etc. Then at least our law enforcement would have data to help | with finding threat actors. | phillipcarter wrote: | Boy, this sure would have been a lot easier if they just dropped | Kiwi Farms with little fanfare the instant it was clear they were | using CF. I bet they'd have been able to even keep the perception | that they're a super neutral platform, too. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-03 23:00 UTC)