News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’re doing. Parent comment

Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by nl on Sunday September 08, 2019 @04:40AM (#20909302)
There are multiple instances of them announcing them and implying they are follow-ups of previous discussions on 8chan.

These include the Christchurch shootings, the Poway synagogue shooting and the El Paso Walmart shootin.

The Christchurch shooter shared his Facebook stream to 8chan before the shooting started, and it was spread from there.

The Poway shooter blamed/thanked 8chan for his views.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by dangxiaopin on Sunday September 08, 2019 @11:09AM (#20910986)
So FB's internet peers should depeer Facebook then in their routers, since the original material (the stream) was on FB? Or you prefer your justice selective?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by nl on Sunday September 08, 2019 @10:49PM (#20914829)
I'm sure you already realize this, but to make it clear: FB has enormous utility for billions of people outside that and that is worth defending.

You are expanding a lot of effort defending 8chan here. Perhaps consider that it might not be worth defending.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by dangxiaopin on Monday September 09, 2019 @01:24AM (#20915400)
8ch had a lot of very interesting and non-violent stuff. Have you been reading it regularly? I did.

I lived in a socialist country and you did not. Perhaps consider that you might not know where these current trends are pointing to.

[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by marvin-83 on Monday September 09, 2019 @09:36AM (#20917994)
you're not really engaging with his point. Effectively banning 8chan by removing network protection does not just restrict extremists; it restricts anyone who used that forum.

Ultimately, such matters should be prosecuted by courts. It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by nl on Monday September 09, 2019 @09:19PM (#20924267)
It is inappropriate for organisations like cloudflare to leverage their position within essential network infrastructure to start editorialising what passes through their network.

No, I think it's entirely appropriate.

"Don't troll" and methods for dealing with trolls has been a thing all sites have done since the internet was invented. I don't see any difference here at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by marvin-83 on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @11:07AM (#20929018)
the difference is their position in the stack.

Cloudflare blocking people that abuse the network is legitimate (e.g. spam, denial-of-service), just like it is legitimate for forum admins to block people that abuse the forum (trolling, explicit posts).

But cloudflare, or any other network infrastructure provider, shouldn't be determining permissible content for websites because they are not hosts/administrators for that content.

It is like a postal service reading your letters and then saying "we don't like what is being said, so you can't send letters anymore." They can and should stop people sending dangerous materials by post, but they should not be determining permissible content of letters.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by nl on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @08:11PM (#20935272)
See, I think 8-chan itself is a troll, and it is entirely reasonable to deal with it by refusing to provide service.

It is like a postal service reading your letters and then saying "we don't like what is being said, so you can't send letters anymore." They can and should stop people sending dangerous materials by post, but they should not be determining permissible content of letters.

No it's not. It's like FedEx declining to deliver for a company which continues to cause it problems, or refusing to service Amazon[1]. Or like Visa refusing to service businesses which have lots of charge-backs.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fedex-amazon-exp...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by ryacko on Wednesday September 11, 2019 @04:15AM (#20937677)
Actually, it is illegal to mail obscene materials or crime inciting matter through the postal service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by marvin-83 on Wednesday September 11, 2019 @11:31AM (#20941206)
yes, but these are investigated and prosecuted by police, public prosecution services, and courts; not by couriers discontinuing their services.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Malicious attack on Wikipedia – what we know and what we’... by marvin-83 on Wednesday September 11, 2019 @11:52AM (#20941478)
if 8chan was cut off because they were subject to extensive network attacks and cloudflare did not see any profit or value in serving them then I am ok with that. I just don't think that's the reason.

I expect that a different site with the same contract and payment terms, subject to the same attacks would have continued to be protected. maybe I'm wrong but it looked like a political decision, not a business decision.

[ Parent | on HN ]