News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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...

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

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.
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.