Cloudflare Helps Serve Up Hate Online: Report (cnet.com) 210
An anonymous reader writes: If you've been wondering how hate has proliferated online, especially since the 2016 election, ProPublica has some answers. According to ProPublica, Cloudflare -- a major San Francisco-based internet company -- enables extremist web sites to stay in business by providing them with internet data delivery services. Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
TCP/IP enables extremist web sites to stay in business by providing them with internet data delivery services
Re:This is not news. (Score:5, Insightful)
don't forget that part.
Doxxing? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it a "doxx" to forward complaints about a site to the site owner after telling people that you will forward complains to the site owner? Just look at the CloudFlare abuse report form [cloudflare.com] -
(emphasis added)
They're not looking up your information, they're forwarding your feedback about the site to the people who actually control the site. It's your fault if you don't even read the damned page and send your contact info to some site telling the people who run it just how much you hate them.
Re:Doxxing? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you send a DMCA to cloudflare, cloudflare ends it to the upstream provider
You've got a major uphill battle if you want Slashdot to agree with you that getting a DMCA takedown should be anonymous and easy.
Re:This is not news. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and doxing anybody who complains about a hate site.
don't forget that part.
To be fair, you'd be pretty stupid to miss where it says they may release your contact information (name and email address) to the site owner. I think CloudFlare's general stance is they aren't interested in policing content that is not demonstrably illegal.
By submitting this report, you consent to the above information potentially being released by CloudFlare to third parties such as the website owner, the responsible hosting provider, law enforcement, and/or entities like Chilling Effects.
Ref: CloudFlare's Abuse Page [cloudflare.com]
Pleading the Sixth: right to confront accuser (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought due process in Cloudflare's home country included the right for someone accused of a crime to confront his accuser [wikipedia.org] (U.S. Const., Amendment VI).
Re: (Score:2)
It does. In a Court of Law. Not the Internet Court of Public Opinion. For now, those are still different.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought due process in Cloudflare's home country included the right for someone accused of a crime to confront his accuser [wikipedia.org] (U.S. Const., Amendment VI).
You do understand there's a difference between the right to confront your accuser in court when you've been brought up on charges, and harassing and threatening someone who's complained to your ISP, right?
Reports with a tone of "I'll press charges" (Score:2)
You do understand there's a difference between the right to confront your accuser in court when you've been brought up on charges, and harassing and threatening someone who's complained to your ISP, right?
An accusation of hate speech, which one might define as incitement toward bias-motivated crime, is a fairly strong indicator of intending to have the accused "brought up on charges."
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand there's a difference between the right to confront your accuser in court when you've been brought up on charges, and harassing and threatening someone who's complained to your ISP, right?
An accusation of hate speech, which one might define as incitement toward bias-motivated crime, is a fairly strong indicator of intending to have the accused "brought up on charges."
If, and when, that happens, they'll have the right to confront their accuser in court. But it's still not going to be the people complaining to the ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
14th Amendment guarantees of equal rights, privileges and immunities apply to all public entities empowered by the state (business license for instance)
And 13th Amendment prohibitions on slavery specifically target individuals
1st Amendment, 6th Amendment etc. do not impress on the corporate body
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is Political Pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. This is not news. it is political propaganda.
These stories, like the "extremism on Youtube" stories, are designed to put pressure on companies to abandon their free speech principals and submit to the will of the media and the political class.
Let us be frank: The article mentions the "Daily Stormer", but the actual websites which will be banned are almost certain to resemble the Prop or Not list of alleged "Russian Propaganda" sites [propornot.com]. A list promoted heavily be the Washington Post and other MSM sites which ultimately included many independent bloggers and even left-wing progressive sites like nakedcapitalism.com.
The Propornot list was a list of doubters. Sites which would not tow the propaganda line, on war, on the banks, on the economy, on the election. These are the sites which the political class has been scheming to proscribe since the election. I would hope that people can put aside their political preferences in that election long enough to acknowledge that it was a shocking defeat for the Media and the increasingly corrupt political establishment. Regardless of your opinions on him, someone the political class did not want got in, and they are making moves and exerting political pressure -- usually through their lapdogs in the media-- to prevent ANY such repeat occurrence.
Regardless of whether you'd prefer vote for Trump or Sanders or any other disruptive candidate come 2020, if this censorship drive continues, the MSM will dominate the internet as well, and you'll be stuck with the political equivalents of Hillary and Jeb Bush.
Re:This is not news. (Score:4, Funny)
Mozilla is complicit in shipping browsers which load Neo-Nazi websites.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the definition of hate. I mean, I can see why you'd want to claim it is, as it's great for your argument, but it has no reflection on reality.
So they sell to anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
So Cloudfare sells their services to everyone who's willing to pay for it.
The ultimate in diversity and that's now "bad"?
Are there calls to stop providing services to Stephen Colbert's show and CBS now then?
No?
Huh...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So Cloudfare sells their services to everyone who's willing to pay for it.
The ultimate in diversity and that's now "bad"?
Correct, there's no room for diversity of thought in progressivism. It's more of a chanting-in-unison sort of thing.
Freedom of speech means "freedom of speech you don't like". Sound like Cloudflare is a champion of free speech (as if we didn't already know that from keeping torrent sites alive). Good on em.
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Funny)
As a progressive, Bernie-voting, liberal democrat... "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it".
We try to self-police this sort of bullshit witch-hunting, but portions of the party have gotten out of hand. At least we didn't cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.
Re: (Score:2)
You personally may not have... but I know more than a few Bernie fans who were so disillusioned that they voted for Trump in the end.
Heck, as I recall, the gal featured in this infamous tweet is one such person: https://twitter.com/emmaroller... [twitter.com]
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
You personally may not have... but I know more than a few Bernie fans who were so disillusioned that they voted for Trump in the end.
During the primaries I honestly could not believe the Clinton supporters and how arrogant they acted. "We don't need you or your vote!" was a common sentiment I saw.
I participated in both primary parties for Ron Paul (2012) and Bernie Sanders (2016) and while the GOP did do some messed up shit that bit them in the ass to ignore the delegates Ron Paul won during 2012, nothing compared to the #BernieBro resentment from the Clinton camp. It was incredible to me that there was such animosity for a different opinion in the same party. For all the faults of the GOP, they do have a fairly diverse range of ideas the party represent while the Democrats wanted to limit what is an acceptable opinion by shaming those that strayed from the party mantra.
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
more than a few Bernie fans who were so disillusioned that they voted for Trump in the end.
Even after seeing what he did during the first 100 days, I still think the cheeto was a slightly better choice than the Mother of Lies. And that both compare unfavourably to Cthulhu/Dagon.
The problem with you Americans is that your electoral scheme is made so no sane party is currently viable. You have a party that says attack helicopter is a gender and that straying a single word off their orthodoxy makes you worse than Hitler, and a party that says everything that disagrees with their sky fairy is wrong despite any evidence to the contrary. It's quite mind-boggling why a third party won't pop up and have 90% votes immediately (ie, anyone with a shred of brain left).
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite mind-boggling why a third party won't pop up and have 90% votes immediately (ie, anyone with a shred of brain left).
The US electoral system mathematically dictates that the US have a two-party system. This [youtu.be] explains why much better than I could.
We desperately need to overall this system.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with you Americans is that your electoral scheme
It isn't our electoral scheme, it is the binary nature of our electoral system, that wasn't designed to be binary. Early on, there were plenty of parties that participated, and won elections. But as the power corrupted people, the two parties colluded to add in "rules" about how primaries were supposed to work, and now we have everyone from Commie Pinkos to Moderately conservatives in the Democrats, and Far Right idiots to liberal RINOs in the Republicans.
The system wasn't designed to be this way. The Elect
Re: (Score:2)
Early on, there were plenty of parties that participated, and won elections
. . .You mean for the first 5 years? [wikipedia.org]
Because the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party got going in 1792. 5 years after we had the constitution in 1787. And there weren't so much "plenty of parties" so much as "There was George Washington".
Learn some history yo.
Other than that, I agree and that's a mostly good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they would. I can identify a person's major political leaning with about 3 questions, and from that, I can predict their party preference maybe 75% of the time. 90% if the only parties considered are R and D. I can then also predict that person's answers to political or policy questions with about 90% accuracy. (All steps here assume honest and
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead you cozy up to anarchist, spawn antifa, and riot?
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
anarchist
Yes. Realize that the other side ALSO want anarchy, at least they want to tear down the government, deregulate everything, and trust the anarchy of the free market to rule in it's place. They want the government out of business. Our flavor of anarchists want the government out of our personal lives.
antifa
Who?
Is that anti-fascism? As in, Woody Guthrie? [wikipedia.org] That guy with the "This machine kills fascism" guitar? If so, then yes. Bob Dylan has some good stuff too.
Am I supposed to be supporting fascism? Did I not get that memo?
and riot?
Sigh, yeah. That's a problem. I highly prefer the peaceful protest marches. And I could say something about there being plenty of violence on the other side of the fence. Or that the bulk of rioters are probably apolitical and just partaking of a crime of opportunity... but I have to admit that as far as cozzying up to bad tactics and asshats, that's been a problem.
We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's progressive.
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Informative)
Is that anti-fascism?
Common misunderstanding - they're ante-fascists, as in proto-fascists. When one side is marching in black uniforms, initiating political violence, using violence to shut down speech they disagree with, and generally trying to reenact Weimar Germany, that side has made is clear they're the fascists (or at least wannabes).
We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's progressive.
Funny, I heard "We're sure not perfect, but we strive to change for the better. That's Christianity." a great many times growing up. Plus ca change.
I'm sure many progressives have their heart in the right place, but then so did many right-wing religious whackos. The worst tyrants are those who think they're doing it for your own good, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Well considering I've never heard of either antifa or antefa before, I'm not a fan of jackboot thugs, and I've never seen civvies marching around in black uniforms... I'm going to go out on a limb and say I haven't really cozzied up to that lot.
The rioting political activists are indeed a problem, although I certainly haven't seen them as any sort of orgainized. Certainly not enough to have uniforms. Is this a European thing?
The sort of anarchists I associate with progressivism would be the Occupy Wallstree
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I haven't really cozzied up to that lot.
Good for you! If you haven't paid attention to the Battle at Berkeley, you're a bit out of touch, but that's probably for the best, mental health wise.
The best bit was the protest that was shut down cold before it began in Alabama, where there's a (strongly enforced) law against public activities in masks or hoods, for good historical reasons. I doubt it sunk home with the antifa crowd that their behavior was overlapping so much with old-school KKK.
The religious right is rooted in conservatism, as in conserving the old ways and or going back to the old ways.
I didn't say they changed as a culture, but the whole religion is based on changing as individuals, striving to be more Christ-like and whatnot, for whatever that's worth. Still, their rhetoric was the same. And, to be fair to Christianity, it has changed a lot over a larger time scale - they've had a Reformation, various wars that changed the mainstream culture, the entire emergence of Protestants (protest-ants - sound familiar?), and so on. Things desperately needed by another medieval religion I could name.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that Martin Luther returned the church to the teachings of God. When people wish for an Islamic reformation, they want Islam to move away from Allah. There is no theological basis for a more peaceful Islam - instead, you get ISIS calling Muslims to return to the true Islam. In other words, ISIS is the reformation that you are hoping for.
http://vidble.com/GjpDwJJaPA.p... [vidble.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants. ~ A. Camus
Re:So they sell to anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Our flavor of anarchists want the government out of our personal lives.
Uh, no I am not talking about the semantic differences of the role/size of government. Wanting a limited government is not the same as wanting NO government. I am talking about the legitimate dictionary definition of anarchist that doesn't want a government or hierarchy.These are the type of anarchists I am talking about. Notice that they struggle with idea of a leader to organize their riots. [archive.fo].
Antifa uses violence to achieve their political goals. Literally the definition of terrorism. In that thread they muse about combat training to better beat up people they don't like. If you think these are your traditional liberals, no. If you support these methods then you do not support freedom or liberty. It doesn't matter how you dress it up "punch a nazi" or "bash the fash", antifa uses violence to silence people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that progressives don't encourage actual anarchists. Most of us are older than 15.
Likewise, I'm not really accusing conservatives of being defined by the immigrant hating, pro-violence, alt-right movement. Both parties will have wing-nuts and extremists which take ideals too far. I mean, if you want a flavor of reddit right-wing hate-mongering, here you go. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, both sides have their extremes. You started with: "cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto.". The current batch on the left is anarchists, antifa, and riot. Obviously there is a stark difference as one is participating and advocating for violence.
That reddit is just The_Donald... What am I supposed to look at? I showed you specifically what I mean when I say "antifa" and "anarchists". Do you think someone is extreme for supporting Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference between the OWS and the refuge protest? Hint; guns. The only person that died was one of the activists that resisted arrest. Were they taking away the rights of other citizens?
The Charleston Church Shooting... What does that have to do with protest? Maybe you don't understand between organized groups taking the rights away from other people and one crazy person acting on their bigotry alone.
As for the others, sounds like lots of talk... What is the difference between all of these exam
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to respond to all because I honestly don't care about an a.c.
Your refusal to finish reading what they had to say discredits you, or perhaps even makes you a hypocrite, if you are insistent on other's misrepresentations. All because you got offended at them, and chose to stalk off in a tantrum.
No. I just don't like opinion pieces masqueraded as fact that distort the truth. If an article is willing to bend the truth for one item, why wouldn't they do it for other claims? How many other little truths are bent or broken? I don't know and I would be ill-equipped to find them all if I am trying to learn about a topic or subject. It doesn't matter who they are. If they can't quote/report accurately then I don't care for their analys
Re: (Score:2)
I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups. I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.
As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... tell me more how I think because obviously you can read minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech means "freedom of speech you don't like". Sound like Cloudflare is a champion of free speech (as if we didn't already know that from keeping torrent sites alive). Good on em.
'Freedom of speech' is fine, but you're still responsible for what comes out of your piehole. If someone is going around saying "I hate N I G G E R S and J E W S and S P I C S and I think they all should be KILLED", sure, that's someone exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech -- however: When I or a hundred other someones get in that guys' face to tell him what an asshole he is, and how he should shut the fuck up, that's also our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. On the other h
Re: (Score:2)
When I or a hundred other someones get in that guys' face to tell him what an asshole he is, and how he should shut the fuck up, that's also our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Yes, but you are treading on thin ice and flirting with mob justice and rule.
especially when who you're vaguely threatening IS A WOMAN
So, you're a sexist? If you believe that men and women are equal then any crimal act against someone is just as deplorable as if it had happened to a member of the opposite sex. However, if you have some kind of conditional requirement that makes the crime "especially" worse that means you think the genders are not equal and any criminal act to a weaker sex is "especially" more bad because society in general protects the weaker mem
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any respect for the strong physicaly attacking/subjugating/bullying the weak, regardless of gender, but women tend to be physically weaker than men, which makes it all the more repugnant so far as I'm concerne
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my point. you used the qualifier "especially a woman". That signifies that you look males and females different because that was your special consideration you put on a crime. Your language is reducing women to a weaker gender by stating that a crime done to a women is "especially" more bad than if that crime had been done to a man. IOW, you are a sexist. If you weren't a sexist you wouldn't have made that distinction because there is nothing special about it or anything that would make i
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism.
Using freedom of speech to try to shut down critics is both a hypocritical and losing argument. If you want free speech to be your defence, you cant use it to shut down people who will criticise what you have to say. Otherwise you're the one who wants everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Using freedom of speech to try to shut down critics is both a hypocritical and losing argument.
Agreed. That's why I like Cloudflare for preventing "hate speech" sites, torrent sites, and so on from being shut down. Some of the site may be run by total assholes, but Cloudflare is doing good work.
so having or communicating *emotion* is bad (Score:1, Insightful)
an *extreminst* website is anything I think is extreme. like Windows fanboy websites.
"Hate" is anything I hate. If it's speech that I hate, the person is making "hate speech"
------------------
What a bunch of hothouse plants the current generation is, can't survive in the real human world
Re:so having or communicating *emotion* is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there *is* quite useful way to define extremism that doesn't rely on on subjective value judgments about the admissiability someone's particular ideology.
To the degree that a person tends to perceive the world as polarized into two camps with no overlap or middle ground, that person is an extremist. It doesn't mean he's wrong on any particular issue.
So, socialists who think anyone who isn't a socialist is a fascist are extremist socialists. Likewise capitalists who see any departure from laisez-faire as tantamount to communism are extremist capitalists. Their comrades with similar views about issues but somewhat more flexible views about people are not extremists.
Extremists view the world as populated by the moral equivalent of angels and devils; consequently they have a severe difficulty with compromising or horse-trading, which is tantamount to a deal with the devil. This is why extremist movements are notorious for schism [youtube.com].
This also explains the resurgence of extremism in the age of social media. It's never been easier to surround yourself with like-minded people, no matter how outré your particular mania is.
Now "hate speech" is an entirely different matter. It's poorly named because "hate" is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic of hate speech is intimidation. Suppose you burn a cross on a black family's lawn, not because you have anything personal against blacks, but because you know that it's better for your property's value if the neighborhood is entirely white. That's still hate speech, even though you don't feel any hate. On the other hand if you politely inform your black neighbor so you'd prefer it if the two of you stayed out of each other's way because you hate blacks, that's not hate speech.
Hate speech is a crime against liberty: it's an attempt to force people not to live here or put their genitals there, when it's none of your damn business.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real human world you should prepare yourself to defend against attackers who don't respect other's body and safety. Strangely enough, those that whine about "hate speech" are usually against having the means to defend against attackers, they'd rather everyone just be a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
no armed security guards at Sandy Hook. In my neighborhood which has *very little* crime at all the police patrol the schools.
The article I read said Sandy Hook survivor harassed by "truthers" which between your ears equates to "gun nuts"...and is irrelevant anyway. Maybe you need to self-police.
Re: (Score:2)
so what? Call us crazy, conspiracy theorists, or paranoia porn purveyors....we're the ones with the guns!
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about the recent stabbing attack in Austin, stopped by a Concealed Carry gun. Oh wait, that bit never hit the MSM news so you might not know about it. Or the thousands of other crimes stopped by armed citizens.
Personally, I am more scared of a disarmed populace in the face of a well armed government, than I am of a random attack, one even in a "no gun zone".
who decides what is "hate"? (Score:2)
so what should we do about it? just because you find something hateful doesnt mean I do, and im sure things I find hateful might not bother others. in the end the answer is simple. If you dont want to see/read/watch something... dont go to that site!!!
Fake News for Nerds (Score:1)
Anti-Free Speech that Matters
not censoring is hate serving? (Score:3, Insightful)
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
so unless there is a call for actual and specific illegal activity(say by calling for murder of a specific individual or group) such speech should not be censored based on such a vaguely defined term.
that is my opinion.
of course private companies have a right to do what they want with their property, either to censor or not. others(myself included) have a right to criticize that too, either way.
Re: (Score:2)
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
Sorry, but that is wrong. "Hate" has a very specific definition, at least in the UK. "Hate" is targeted at a protected attribute such as race, sex and religion and is a deliberately and maliciously targeted and sustained harassment or threats against a protected attribute.
If you were to bully someone over having red hair you'd be an arsehole, but that would be regular harassment. OTOH, if you bullied someone over being Asian, then you'd be a racist arsehole and that would be racial harassment.
Only those wit
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that they're referring to the proxy servers and the complaint form that they host as being the property mentioned.
Re:not censoring is hate serving? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who put you in charge of the English language, you whining little shit?
Re: (Score:2)
"Build the wall" is considered "hate speech" even though it doesn't conform to any of the GP posts list. I've argued that Cameron Diaz being "Hispanic" being blond and having blue eyes wouldn't conform to the "brown skin" narrative the left loves to portray. That narrative, which wrongly groups entire ethic and racial populations into a group that is neither racial or ethnic, anymore than French are a race/ethnicity.
This is the problem with "hate speech" definitions, is that the "groups" keep changing depen
What the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
What sort of stupid hit piece is this?
I'm not even going to bother picking this apart because (1) other slashdotters will and (2) no one on here is stupid enough on here for this spin.
I scrolled back up expecting to see another infamous BeauHD submission, but its msmash. C'mon, don't lower your standards.
Re: (Score:2)
The bullshit article about "Carbon Intensity is Falling in Industrial, Electric Power Sectors" was another one of msmash's turds.
Re: (Score:2)
Whooooaaaaaa..... Slashdot just has the two now? msmash and BeauHD?
Re: (Score:1)
This is how they trick you into giving up your rights.
In 10-20 years, the right wing extremists will be gone, and then all the laws they setup for them will be turned on you.
The war isn't against right wing populism, its against populism in general.
The mainstream has just as repulsive views, which won't be censored.
captcha: exactly
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a problem with this.
Then again, I'm not a complete bogan so I don't think populism is a synonym for democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler and Mussolini were populists. Le Pen and Trump are.
Think you got a sign wrong in your calculations.
Good (Score:2)
Anonymity through Cloudflare (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The reason they're after CloudFlare is in the summary, because it's "a major San Francisco-based internet company."
The activists want to isolate them and push for policies that create private policemen for what you can and cannot say online by taking ideological control of the privately-held infrastructure. You know, to push us back to the pre-web days when only a few voices were allowed to speak pre-filtered messages to the people.
What we really need is to expand the ideals behind common carriers and publ
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. Free speech is free speech, even if it's not necessarily something that you, personally, might agree with, and (when it works) it's a two way street - you can't get them to STFU, but they can't get you to STFU either.
That's completely apart from the doxing of people who complain directly to those that are being complained about though; something that CloudFlare has a considerable track record o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem is that often Cloudflare does not behave in a responsible manner when complaints arise. At one point my mail server was getting pounded by spam bounce backs and the web sites being advertised were hidden behind Cloudflare. The response I got from Cloudflare was basically sorry, it's not our fault, oh, and we'll do nothing so the spammer can continue to use those sites (selling viagra, pump and dump, etc.).
A responsible company would look at this and kick those sites off of their network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, they dox anybody who complains (Score:2, Insightful)
"Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment."
So, they dox anybody who complains about a hate site. Charming.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Cloudflare lawyer Doug Kramer told Propublica that the company turned over the names of complainants because it is "base constitutional law that people can face their accusers."
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that only applied in court?
Re:So, they dox anybody who complains (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise known as forwarding the complaint. They aren't policing content. Calling this "doxxing" is like complaining that Amazon gave your address to UPS.
How is this bad? (Score:2)
Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
Isn't a basic tenet of any justice system the right to face one's accuser? Why should accusers be able to hide behind a mask of anonymity?
Re: (Score:3)
Cloudflare reportedly also keeps to a policy of turning over contact information of anyone who complains to operators of the offending sites, thus exposing the complainants to personal harassment.
Isn't a basic tenet of any justice system the right to face one's accuser? Why should accusers be able to hide behind a mask of anonymity?
This is just a guess, but probably because we're not talking about a court case, where your reference to "justice system" would be relevant.
Have you ever had the police show up at your door because a neighbor complained that your loud party was disturbing them at 2:30 in the morning? No? They don't say, "John Smith, whose phone number is 555-1212, accused you of disturbing the peace." They say something like, "Your party is too loud. Keep it down, or you'll be cited for disturbing the peace."
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this happen exactly once. And yes, the police did tell me who complained.
Good. And I hope they continue to "serve up hate". (Score:2)
Internet providers allow haters to use CloudFlare (Score:2)
services. The hydro companies sell power to haters allowing them to use buy Internet services from ISP's to access CloudFare services....
Ahem. (Score:2)
Which is it, Pro Publica?
FTA:
Cloudflare lawyer Doug Kramer told Propublica that the company turned over the names of complainants because it is "base constitutional law that people can face their accusers."
We have reached out to Cloudflare for comment and will update this post when we have one.
A comment from their lawyer counts as a response to an inquiry to Cloudflare. I don't mean to be picking nits, but please be clear, and don't contradict yourself from sentence to the next.
This is how you deal with Cloudflare (Score:2)
1: Ignore them. They're simply a service provider.
OR if you're too constitutionally frail for that option like an adult should be
2: Rake together a metric shitload of money and buy the company.
Then you can have your way with your company. Which will immediately begin shedding customers because you're not a trustworthy provider any longer.
And, in the end, you can go broke knowing you shut down that EEEEVIL bastion of wrong-think support!
Because hey, you can always live fat on the public teat...unless you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, you must really hate hate.
Link to actual article (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason the link was to the CNET article. The actual propublica article is here: https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Quote:
"Cloudflare also has an added appeal to sites such as The Daily Stormer [the neo-Nazi web site]. It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content. For instance, when a reader figures out that Cloudflare is the internet company serving sites like The Daily Stormer, they sometimes write to the company to protest. Cloudflare, per its policy, then relays the name and email address of the person complaining to the hate site, often to the surprise and regret of those complaining....
“I wasn’t aware that my information would be sent on. I suppose I, naively, had an expectation of privacy,” said Jennifer Dalton, who had complained that The Daily Stormer was asking its readers to harass Twitter users after the election.
Andrew Anglin, the owner of The Daily Stormer, has been candid about how he feels about people reporting his site for its content. “We need to make it clear to all of these people that there are consequences for messing with us,” Anglin wrote in one online post. “We are not a bunch of babies to be kicked around. We will take revenge. And we will do it now.”
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When my mail server was getting hammered from bounce back of spam where the spammer used my domain name the web sites were behind Cloudflare. Complaining to Cloudflare was useless since they tried to paint themselves as innocent. I agree, Crimeflare is a more apt name for them since criminals know they can hide behind them and commit crime with impunity.
Re:Link to actual article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we have a winner here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tough it out, snowflake. Just because you've been triggered is no reason to squelch free speech.
I presume you're addressing Donald Trump here, considering he's again been pushing the idea of suing the press [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take threats of "suing" over the BlackBloc riots actually stopping free speeches. But yeah, you totally have your priorities spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tough it out, snowflake. Just because you've been triggered is no reason to squelch free speech.
I presume you're addressing Donald Trump here, considering he's again been pushing the idea of suing the press [washingtonpost.com].
Suing the press is freedom of speech, ya moron.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference here. Cloudflare is directly enabling this and when notified of what is going on through the use of their network by their client they do nothing about it. PG&E is a public utility that provides services to everyone as long as they can pay and are not abusing those services. In this case Cloudflare is NOT a public utility and the clients often using those services specifically for their actions and Cloudflare knows it. I've had to deal with criminals hiding behind Cloudflare an