Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Cloudflare vs Keffals thread - Page 4
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Cloudflare vs Keffals thread

124678

Comments

  • What's the next stop now? BitMitigate under Epik?

  • I do not have a horse in this race. I do not know enough to comment about Keffals, Kiwi Farms, and Cloudflare. I wrote a post about doxing and security, but will save that for another day.

    This is such a mess on so many different fronts.

    There are many disturbing posts here and elsewhere related to this topic. I only wish that people who post them could somehow project what they write as if it were directed at themselves or the ones they love. For some reason, they somehow believe that their own malevolent online behavior and threats to others will never happen to them. Hiding behind their anonymity, they feel no empathy for the victims of such attacks, whether they "deserved it" or not. If they felt the same pain that they cause others, would they still post? If they did not have the luxury of anonymity, would their public values and behavior change?

  • @dosai said:
    According to a comment from pol,

    Russia/ddos banned them immediately because holocaust denial is illegal

    Not sure how accurate this is.

    Sounds plausible. So a host in the US should be the best. So KF's combo of CF + US-based hosting company is probably the best. I guess that's why he held up for so long. Once you get real heat most hosters just kick you off even though your sites' content is legal.

  • so from their statement here:

    FiberHub, the company that houses the servers Kiwi Farms is hosted on, has not made a statement. Joshua Moon believes that FiberHub will also drop them, as Kiwi Farms is now considered a terror threat and there is no benefit for any company to provide them service.

    i thought Kiwifarms.net went to ddos-guard in Russia, but they too kicked them out!

  • why ddos-guard kicked kiwifarms in within 24 hours?

  • HarambeHarambe Member, Host Rep

    @JasonM said:
    so from their statement here:

    FiberHub, the company that houses the servers Kiwi Farms is hosted on, has not made a statement. Joshua Moon believes that FiberHub will also drop them, as Kiwi Farms is now considered a terror threat and there is no benefit for any company to provide them service.

    i thought Kiwifarms.net went to ddos-guard in Russia, but they too kicked them out!

    They colo servers at FiberHub - Cloudflare & Ddos-guard just sat in front and proxied traffic back.

  • Back up now with vanwa.tech

    https://t.me/kiwifarms/24

  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran

    Loads fine here: https://kiwifarms.top/

  • borowskyborowsky Member
    edited September 2022

    I wait for a day when cloudflare drops itself.
    It was bad even before they started playing social judge warrior, now its just pure cancer
    Ddos protection service decided to say what should be up or down, like hosting provider and domain provider wasnt enough already
    Especially after years of speaking how 'they are just ddos protection! they cannot bla bla bla..."

    I dont know "Keffals".
    From what I was able to see doing 5min research, he is pretty well fitting with kiwifarms 'community', doing exactly same sort of stuff they are doing. Its ridiculous.

  • FatGrizzlyFatGrizzly Member, Host Rep

    @emg said:
    I do not have a horse in this race. I do not know enough to comment about Keffals, Kiwi Farms, and Cloudflare. I wrote a post about doxing and security, but will save that for another day.

    This is such a mess on so many different fronts.

    There are many disturbing posts here and elsewhere related to this topic. I only wish that people who post them could somehow project what they write as if it were directed at themselves or the ones they love. For some reason, they somehow believe that their own malevolent online behavior and threats to others will never happen to them. Hiding behind their anonymity, they feel no empathy for the victims of such attacks, whether they "deserved it" or not. If they felt the same pain that they cause others, would they still post? If they did not have the luxury of anonymity, would their public values and behavior change?

    I agree with you emg. I don't think keffals or anyone in this issue "deserved it", but don't you find it stupid interacting(oh, i mean leaking) info on a twitch stream while you're actively being watched by anonymous people?

    I know how painful it is to get doxed online, but theres something called "learn from your mistakes, and don't repeat them".

    I also know how sad it is, to continue life after getting doxed online, but i have no experience on swatting since it isnt a thing in my country.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @dirtminer said: I think that in a month or two, we see the roll-out of Cloudflare's new "real time moderation" services.

    Unlikely. No one wants to be in that business.

    @MannDude said: Bending the knee because less than 1% of the population, who likely would never be customers anyway, was screeching. Big brain business move by DDoS Guard.

    I thin their analysis was more that 99.999% of potential users will not care. There's no business benefit to hosting Kiwi.

    I fundamentally disagree that a private entity refusing to host one particular site is in any way a curtailment of free speech. If the government comes along and says you can't say X or Y, then we have a discussion. But just because you want to say something does not in any way create an obligation on any other human to help you say it, even if you're willing to pay them.

    And let's remember - when Kiwi signed up for CF (or DG or whatever), they signed an agreement (same as any subscriber) in which they said "ok, if we do X and Y, we agree you can drop us". They did, and got dropped. What is the controversy again?

    @jsg said: "Free speech".

    Violated TOS. Would you consider spam free speech? I haven't looked, but I'm sure CF hosts plenty of other hosts with disgusting content. (This is where someone makes a LET joke).

    @stefeman said: They just proved (once again) that they are able to take down any site/content/service at any time possible if they wish to do so.

    This has always been the case. CF is not a public utility. They're a private business. Every company has the right to say "we don't want to do business with you" and they don't have to justify it.

    I don't think Kiwi gets to wrap themselves in the free speech flag on this one. If they had a policy where they moderated and removed any doxxing content, banned discussion of swatting, etc. and it was solely a site that made fun of people or whatever, CF probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they agreed to the TOS when they signed up and shouldn't have been surprised they were banned for violating it.

  • tl;dr of what @raindog308 is trying to say:

  • @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:
    I feel like Cloudflare is doing the right here, if you're getting swatted online/doxed online, I personally feel like its "your" issue that you left pieces of data on the internet.

    Holy shit, that's some fucked up victim blaming there. You've been added to the List of Fucking Cunts.

    It's totally her issue that she leaked stuff herself on internet, carefully think about it.

    So if your address, EASILY found on the internet is known, it's their fault if they get swatted with a dozen heavily armed police come through the door without notice?

    Please confirm if you're just trolling for weasel or you actually hold this opinion.

    Ok not swatting, moreover in the country I live in there's no swat team, or such team to break into houses.

    But for getting doxed, maybe rethink life before saying everything live on stream.

    Her friend wanted her to have a fucking Poutine. So better alert everyone of your contacts to never want something good for you again.

    Live in fear of living a reasonable life? Fuck off.

    Stop defending doxxing, fucking hell!

    I don't think you're getting my point, if you want me to stop defending doxing, OK.

    I am personally against doxing where they hire people to stalk you IRL, but i have no words for the people who announce it and cry about it.

    Literally who in the fucking world would tell in a stream that she is gonna go have Poutine when people are actively looking to dox/swat them.

    Keffals and Emily both are stupid.

    You don't get it. They're actively being targeted by pieces of shit to do harm, you're splitting hairs over required effort.

    Please tell me you don't tell rape victims they asked for it because they showed cleavage. SMH

    God. Please don't tell me that you announce whatever you are going to do next in a twitch stream.

    I don't, but isn't Twitch for engaging with your fans? That would be pretty fucking common.

    But are you saying NOBODY should ever post nonspecific public location (is Berlin some tiny fucking village to you?) ? Like people should never ever say they're going to a concert, game or whatever BECAUSE SOME ASSHOLE WILL ATTACK THEM?

    You fall into that "you don't deserve liberty" category. SMH

    read my replies properly maybe?

    Did you read my reply? It was in CAPS, you moron. Your response should have been "yes", confirming you would crawl into a hole like a bitch. SMH

    In the future, I hope they intentionally post misleading shit so the incels waste more of their waste of life.

    On a side note, Berlin needs more than 12 Poutine shops for a city that size.

  • Service providers should not try to play law enforcement. They shall react to court orders, but not to twitter mobs.

  • FatGrizzlyFatGrizzly Member, Host Rep

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @FatGrizzly said:
    I feel like Cloudflare is doing the right here, if you're getting swatted online/doxed online, I personally feel like its "your" issue that you left pieces of data on the internet.

    Holy shit, that's some fucked up victim blaming there. You've been added to the List of Fucking Cunts.

    It's totally her issue that she leaked stuff herself on internet, carefully think about it.

    So if your address, EASILY found on the internet is known, it's their fault if they get swatted with a dozen heavily armed police come through the door without notice?

    Please confirm if you're just trolling for weasel or you actually hold this opinion.

    Ok not swatting, moreover in the country I live in there's no swat team, or such team to break into houses.

    But for getting doxed, maybe rethink life before saying everything live on stream.

    Her friend wanted her to have a fucking Poutine. So better alert everyone of your contacts to never want something good for you again.

    Live in fear of living a reasonable life? Fuck off.

    Stop defending doxxing, fucking hell!

    I don't think you're getting my point, if you want me to stop defending doxing, OK.

    I am personally against doxing where they hire people to stalk you IRL, but i have no words for the people who announce it and cry about it.

    Literally who in the fucking world would tell in a stream that she is gonna go have Poutine when people are actively looking to dox/swat them.

    Keffals and Emily both are stupid.

    You don't get it. They're actively being targeted by pieces of shit to do harm, you're splitting hairs over required effort.

    Please tell me you don't tell rape victims they asked for it because they showed cleavage. SMH

    God. Please don't tell me that you announce whatever you are going to do next in a twitch stream.

    I don't, but isn't Twitch for engaging with your fans? That would be pretty fucking common.

    But are you saying NOBODY should ever post nonspecific public location (is Berlin some tiny fucking village to you?) ? Like people should never ever say they're going to a concert, game or whatever BECAUSE SOME ASSHOLE WILL ATTACK THEM?

    You fall into that "you don't deserve liberty" category. SMH

    read my replies properly maybe?

    Did you read my reply? It was in CAPS, you moron. Your response should have been "yes", confirming you would crawl into a hole like a bitch. SMH

    In the future, I hope they intentionally post misleading shit so the incels waste more of their waste of life.

    On a side note, Berlin needs more than 12 Poutine shops for a city that size.

    My best guess is you don't understand simple life policies, moreover I feel like there's no point in aruging with you since you're like one of the support chat bots repeating the same thing over and over.

    Thanked by 1ntlx
  • @martheen said:
    Interesting... I thought DDoS-Guard won't really care about the complaints, considering they hosted literally Hamas in the past and HKLeaks, which is doing the exact same thing to HK democracy activists, with state-enforced consequences (no swatting needed if the police really going to arrest you)

    You need to be in the Enterprise plan, and your pricing will increase as they absorb DMCA requests under a one-year period, I assume this is because they are willing to go through the law with you with their lawyers. However, kiwifarms is an entirely different beast & highly political, mine is just a couple of anime sites getting heat from anime companies.

  • Even my antivirus blocks kiwifarms

  • irmirm Member
    edited September 2022

    @emgh said: It’s obviously a joke too, I personally have nothing against sick jokes, altough in this case I found it extremely boring. Nothing in it was fun. No punch line not anything.

    However, clearly meant to sound fun.

    IMO its an obvious illegitimate threat but this still raises the question: what is stopping "bad actors" (a mob against kiwifarms) from sabotaging and spreading misinformation against platforms such as kiwifarms and others that they disagree with (looking at you ramnode and the incident that has/is occuring with rDrama.net)?

    think about how many instances we've seen in the media of peaceful protests turning violent because bad actors (police, government officials) go undercover, wear a mask, insert themselves as protestors in a crowd, take a rock, or a stick to a window and now law enforcement has justification to step in and shut something down because suddenly a protest turned violent (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendment).

    this same logic and action can easily be carried over to online platforms and that is what can (and in my opinion) has happened here to an extent.

    supporters of this keffals person can sign up for a site they're protesting/want shut down and just start bombarding forum posts with obviously illegal/explicit content that forces the hand of service providers while making it seem like it is 100% organic content generated by some threatening person/mob out to get them.

    this has set an extremely bad precedent and cloudflare and other providers should be ashamed at how easily they may have just been manipulated and fooled by an organized online mob.

    Thanked by 1ntlx
  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran

    @Ahfaiahkid said:
    Even my antivirus blocks kiwifarms

    I'd report a false positive. Unless they're serving malware or viruses over the domain in question, seems stupid for an antivirus program to block it. (Unless you have some child safety or similar feature enabled)

  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member
    edited September 2022

    @Harambe said:

    @JasonM said:
    so from their statement here:

    FiberHub, the company that houses the servers Kiwi Farms is hosted on, has not made a statement. Joshua Moon believes that FiberHub will also drop them, as Kiwi Farms is now considered a terror threat and there is no benefit for any company to provide them service.

    i thought Kiwifarms.net went to ddos-guard in Russia, but they too kicked them out!

    They colo servers at FiberHub - Cloudflare & Ddos-guard just sat in front and proxied traffic back.

    I wonder who has connections with Fiberhub and a past affiliation with Kiwi?

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited September 2022

    @raindog308 said:

    @jsg said: "Free speech".

    Violated TOS. Would you consider spam free speech? I haven't looked, but I'm sure CF hosts plenty of other hosts with disgusting content. (This is where someone makes a LET joke).

    Good example actually. While I wouldn't even so much as blink when spammers get executed "TOS" doesn't mean "whatever you feel to allow or not to allow". Simple rule: law, and even more so the constitution, trumps companies' decisions/rules.

    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    Now, one of course could discuss whether what the constitution says is smart or not but unless it's changed/amended that rule stays valid and binding, period.

    Similarly one can discuss whether kiwifarms deserves protection or not but as long as the constitution says "free speech for everyone", everyone, incl. kiwifarms, has that right.

    And btw, Cloudf#%?% isn't even in the content business; it's in the business of (hopefully) transporting and make accessible data faster.

  • @raindog308 said:
    I fundamentally disagree that a private entity refusing to host one particular site is in any way a curtailment of free speech. If the government comes along and says you can't say X or Y, then we have a discussion. But just because you want to say something does not in any way create an obligation on any other human to help you say it, even if you're willing to pay them.

    Thank you, I've been saying this for years!
    There is a big difference between *not helping you say it" and "not allowing you to say it". I am so sick and tired of retards complaining that they are being censored by Facebook, Youtube, "mainstream media" or whatever they are crying about. If a private company removes content from their own platform, they are not "censoring" you, they are simply not publishing your shit.

  • @jsg said:
    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    I totally agree with you.
    But, and this is the important thing here, Cloudflare has not in any way stopped Kiwifarm from saying whatever they want. Cloudflare has only said that "we, as a private company, do not want you as a customer". There is a big difference between trying to prevent someone from saying something and not helping someone saying something.

    Thanked by 2TimboJones Peppery9
  • @jsg said:

    @raindog308 said:

    @jsg said: "Free speech".

    Violated TOS. Would you consider spam free speech? I haven't looked, but I'm sure CF hosts plenty of other hosts with disgusting content. (This is where someone makes a LET joke).

    Good example actually. While I wouldn't even so much as blink when spammers get executed "TOS" doesn't mean "whatever you feel to allow or not to allow". Simple rule: law, and even more so the constitution, trumps companies' decisions/rules.

    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    Now, one of course could discuss whether what the constitution says is smart or not but unless it's changed/amended that rule stays valid and binding, period.

    Similarly one can discuss whether kiwifarms deserves protection or not but as long as the constitution says "free speech for everyone", everyone, incl. kiwifarms, has that right.

    And btw, Cloudf#%?% isn't even in the content business; it's in the business of (hopefully) transporting and make accessible data faster.

    They have entered into the content business with pages, r2, stream & workers, though I would like to think the TOS for those are different than the cdn part of their business.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited September 2022

    @rcy026 said:

    @jsg said:
    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    ... Cloudflare has only said that "we, as a private company, do not want you as a customer"...

    Not quite. Actually a word is missing in what you said, the word 'anymore' that is, they've said that they basically want to break their contract with said customer. Of course they've dressed it up nicely ("TOS") but that doesn't change the fact that they decided to break the contract.

    You see, again, the constitution (over-)rules. And the constitution does not say "[whatever] unless someone feels like ignoring the constitution or limit it in any way" (e.g. via "TOS").

    You would be right if CF had rejected kiwifarms as customers and such never had entered into a contract with them. But that's not how it went.

  • @jsg said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @jsg said:
    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    ... Cloudflare has only said that "we, as a private company, do not want you as a customer"...

    Not quite. Actually a word is missing in what you said, the word 'anymore' that is, they've said that they basically want to break their contract with said customer. Of course they've dressed it up nicely ("TOS") but that doesn't change the fact that they decided to break the contract.

    You see, again, the constitution (over-)rules. And the constitution does not say "[whatever] unless someone feels like ignoring the constitution or limit it in any way" (e.g. via "TOS").

    You would be right if CF had rejected kiwifarms as customers and such never had entered into a contract with them. But that's not how it went.

    I am pretty sure that somewhere in CF's TOS it says that they can end the contract whenever they see fit, so if they suddenly decide that they do not want KF as a customer anymore, that is well within their right.
    Saying that a company may not break a contract is just...absurd. :lol:
    You mean that if I enter into a contract with a provider, I can then publish whatever I want and they are not allowed to react on it? They simply have to put up with it because we have a contract?
    I guarantee you, companies break contracts on a daily basis when they find out things about their customers that they don't like. The law says that a business is allowed to refuse service to any customer as long is it does not do it based on race or color, national origin or citizenship status, religious beliefs, sex, age, veteran status, disability or pregnancy, sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not in any way say that they are not allowed to refuse to do business with a customer they consider to be an asshole.

    Again, the constitution says that you can not stop someone from saying something, but it does not say that you have to help them say it.

    Thanked by 2TimboJones Peppery9
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited September 2022

    @rcy026 said:
    I am pretty sure that somewhere in CF's TOS it says that they can end the contract whenever they see fit, so if they suddenly decide that they do not want KF as a customer anymore, that is well within their right.
    Saying that a company may not break a contract is just...absurd. :lol:
    You mean that if I enter into a contract with a provider, I can then publish whatever I want and they are not allowed to react on it? They simply have to put up with it because we have a contract?
    I guarantee you, companies break contracts on a daily basis when they find out things about their customers that they don't like. The law says that a business is allowed to refuse service to any customer as long is it does not do it based on race or color, national origin or citizenship status, religious beliefs, sex, age, veteran status, disability or pregnancy, sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not in any way say that they are not allowed to refuse to do business with a customer they consider to be an asshole.

    Of course providers (just like customers) can get out prematurely, IF one of the parties acts against the provisions of the contract AND IF those provisions meet legal standards.

    So, e.g. if customer is sharing CP - which is illegal - the provider can terminate the service on solid grounds.
    Things are different however if customer shares/publishes opinions/views/content that provider deems unacceptable; please note that, at least in civilized countries with a working legal system, it is not the provider or his neighbour, his dog, or just anyone on the street, that can determine what's acceptable or not if and when something (like e.g. free speech) is legally protected.

    Again, the constitution says that you can not stop someone from saying something, but it does not say that you have to help them say it.

    Usually I see that idea formulated as "you have not to listen/read it" but never mind, that's not the relevant point anyway. You are confusing and mixing up two things, one of which is freedom of speech and the other one is a contract with a provider. The reason a provider does not have the right to terminate service (in cases like the one we're talking about) is that customer is not in breach of contract and that TOS is always trumped by law and the constitution.

    Side note: My point is not whether kiwifarms is a nice bunch of people or not, nor is my point whether "unconditional free speech" is great or not. My point is that constitution and laws are the way they are and they are binding.
    Look at how the Russians did it! They didn't terminate kiwifarms based on questionable TOS (with very low legal weight), nope, they did it based on some law (holocaust denial or something like that). That is how professionals act.

  • @jsg said:

    @raindog308 said:

    @jsg said: "Free speech".

    Violated TOS. Would you consider spam free speech? I haven't looked, but I'm sure CF hosts plenty of other hosts with disgusting content. (This is where someone makes a LET joke).

    Good example actually. While I wouldn't even so much as blink when spammers get executed "TOS" doesn't mean "whatever you feel to allow or not to allow". Simple rule: law, and even more so the constitution, trumps companies' decisions/rules.

    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    Now, one of course could discuss whether what the constitution says is smart or not but unless it's changed/amended that rule stays valid and binding, period.

    Similarly one can discuss whether kiwifarms deserves protection or not but as long as the constitution says "free speech for everyone", everyone, incl. kiwifarms, has that right.

    And btw, Cloudf#%?% isn't even in the content business; it's in the business of (hopefully) transporting and make accessible data faster.

    What the fuck is "the constitution" and to whom would it apply to?

    Do you actually know what Cloudflare does? Because you clearly do not.

    Thanked by 2Peppery9 martheen
  • @Ahfaiahkid said:

    @jsg said:

    @raindog308 said:

    @jsg said: "Free speech".

    Violated TOS. Would you consider spam free speech? I haven't looked, but I'm sure CF hosts plenty of other hosts with disgusting content. (This is where someone makes a LET joke).

    Good example actually. While I wouldn't even so much as blink when spammers get executed "TOS" doesn't mean "whatever you feel to allow or not to allow". Simple rule: law, and even more so the constitution, trumps companies' decisions/rules.

    When the constitution says "free speech for everyone" a company can't just say "me not care, my rule is that we decide".

    Now, one of course could discuss whether what the constitution says is smart or not but unless it's changed/amended that rule stays valid and binding, period.

    Similarly one can discuss whether kiwifarms deserves protection or not but as long as the constitution says "free speech for everyone", everyone, incl. kiwifarms, has that right.

    And btw, Cloudf#%?% isn't even in the content business; it's in the business of (hopefully) transporting and make accessible data faster.

    They have entered into the content business with pages, r2, stream & workers, though I would like to think the TOS for those are different than the cdn part of their business.

    That's not "the content business". The company streaming Funny or Die website is NOT in "the content business". Think Creators, not Nerds.

Sign In or Register to comment.