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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
That was a Trump second term goal.
You're implying Russians have conscience only when required by law.
So basically what you are saying is that it is completely useless for all the providers here to have TOS when selling their services? Whatever they put in their TOS is rendered invalid unless the constitution says exactly the same thing?
Huh, imagine that. All the people that's been kicked by their provider for running chia, tor exits, hogging resources, opening paypal disputes and whatever the provider has banned in their TOS. If they only knew the provider had no right to cancel their contract.
No, I'm saying that contracts in order to be valid and enforceable must be lawful. TOS that are within the law (the highest ranking part of which is the constitution) are enforceable, TOS clauses, or generally any contract and/or part thereof, that are not within the law may have a psychological effect but are "worthless" because void and not enforceable.
Looks like even archive.org took down archived copies of KiwiFarms.
Really, at this point, this is just Keffals and other similar abusers trying to remove proof of their own wrong doings by pressuring organizations while also DDoSing KiwiFarms whenever they can.
Out of three websites famously booted by Cloudflare, Joshua Moon (the owner of Kiwi Farms) was directly involved in developing two of them. This is, like, the harshest measure and they used it twice on the same person, lmfao.
The other one is 8chan, where he moved to Philippines to live with the cripple owner and develop a new imageboard software. He refused to do any work without drugs present in his system and fled with $12,000 he received to develop the new imageboard software after voices in his head told him that he'd be fired. All the work he'd done needed to be scraped because his mediocre programming skills or intentional malice left 8chan in worse state than before he touched it. He has a whole subforum on Onionfarms and his biography is truly frightening.
Aside of horror, Joshua really was/is interesting person. I would gladly know more about "drugs in his system", that part was wild and properly undocumented.
A man without a D!k is more dangerous than a man with a D!k........------By a wise man...
P.S: Not my quote so don't ban me please..
I'm a hardcore leftist and > @BingoBongo said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/ben-whishaw-james-bond-gay-character-reveal-unsatisfying-2022-1?amp
Help me understand here.
If a TOS says "if you open a paypal dispute we will cancel your service", is that lawful? Opening a paypal dispute does not as far as I know break any laws.
If a TOS says "if you with the help of our service express threat against the lives of other people we will cancel your service", is that lawful? Expressing direct threats against another persons life must surely be illegal even in the US, right?
I will admit that I am no expert on US law since I am not a US citizen, but where I am from you can pretty much put anything you want in your TOS as long as it is not against the law, such as discriminate against people based on religion, sex or race. That is also part of the constitution, as I stated above, however, I do not think there is anything in the constitution that says that you should be free to threaten other people and generally just being asshats and face no consequences for it.
Keep in mind that I'm not trying to chose sides here, I have absolutely no clue who this Keffal person is. But I do know that kiwifarm are a bunch of immature, toxic as f*ck assholes and I am absolutely sure that when the constitution talks about free speech, these are not the kind of people and opinions they tried to protect. Even so, free speech just means you have to right to say something, it does not mean you do not have to take responsibility for the consequences of what you are saying. The shitheads at kiwifarm were allowed to express their opinion, and that is freedom of speech. Now they face the consequences of that opinion, and that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Do you want to misunderstand me? What's so hard to grasp in "Any TOS clauses must be within the law (and hence also within the constitution)"?
On what else should TOS be based other than the law (including obviously the constitution)?
>
Uhm, yes and no. One of course can play on the difference between "within the law" and "not against the law", but the former is safer while the latter risks that a judge interprets things differently than you. Keep in mind that we're talking about a solid, or not so solid, basis upon which a provider takes steps against someone who has rights too, including the right to sue the living sh_t out of a provider who, on questionable grounds, created harm to his customer.
>
Same here (also re kiwifarms). I even went further and said that one might discuss about the question whether "free speech for anyone and everyone" is a smart rule. But as long as it is the rule one can't infringe on their right to free speech - and certainly not based on "we don't like what they say".
I won't defend Kiwifarms, but the thing that always gives me pause is how Cloudflare bans these sites. It's always "we believe in free speech, we believe in free speech" and literally a couple of days later they're saying "well, maybe not for these guys." Their actions are certainly defensible, but how they do it is so wishy-washy and weak-kneed that it's hard to respect them.
Well, the general consensus among basically everyone I have ever spoken to is that a TOS or AUP is used to protect yourself from stuff that is not already covered by law. I mean, things like "you are not allowed to kill our staff" are rarely seen in TOS, because, well, it's already covered by the law. So, a TOS should be based on what the provider forbids his users to do, that is not already forbidden by law. Such as opening a paypal dispute or running chia mining.
Are you seriously suggesting that a TOS can not contain anything that is not already covered by the constitution? Because if that is the case, I guarantee you that you will not find a single provider here or anywhere else that has a valid TOS.
But if this is so perfectly self-explanatory and very simple to understand, please go ahead and answer the questions I asked as examples and maybe that will enlighten me, because you sure as hell or not making much sense right now.
Well, I don't think there are any questionable grounds here.
Wikifarm and Cloudflare enters a contract. In this contract I am pretty certain that it says "by entering this contract you agree to our TOS" or something to that affect. I am also pretty sure that aforementioned TOS has a shitload of paragraphs that says that Cloudflare is free to cancel the service to anyone they see fit at any time, without warning, and this is most likely backed up by a bunch of paragraphs listing things they don't like prepended with "including, but not limited to", meaning it is totally up to Cloudflare to judge what they think is appropriate. If Cloudflare claims you have done something against their TOS then that is basically the truth no matter what, and then your contract with Cloudflare is already broken.
By signing the contract you agree to their TOS, and unless Cloudflare is stupid as fuck that TOS will give them all the power they need to kick out any customer they want. In this case, with literal death threats and the toxic as f*ck Kiwifarm forums, it's a no brainer. I bet there is a hundred different causes Cloudflare can chose from to terminate their contract.
And again, Cloudflare has not in any way stopped Kiwifarm from saying anything. Cloudflare simply said "we will not help you say it".
If I stand up and say "I have the biggest dick in the world!" you are not allowed to stop me from saying that. You are however not obliged to agree with me, and you sure as hell are not forced to repeat what I say to others just because I want you to. That is freedom of speech.
I would say that "free speech for anyone and everyone" is a smart rule, as long as we interpret it as adults and understand that freedom to say something is not the same as not have to face to consequences of what you are saying.
Freedom of speech is exactly what it sounds like, you are free to speak. You are however not free to force someone to listen to or agree with you, and you can not force others to say the same thing. And even if you are free to say whatever you want you will also have to face the consequences of what you are saying.
Here's a hot take. Here is a list of people who suck in relation to this event, and the order is just alphabetical not weighted:
I'm not trying to be neutral, I think all 3 legitimately have shitty takes. When 3 parties who are all being pieces of shit step up to the plate to argue over who is the bigger piece of shit, this situation is what unfolds. You poke a bear, you're being shitty and you get bit. You bite someone for poking you, you're being shitty and you get smacked. You smack someone for being shitty, you're being shitty and you get treated like shit.
The only innocent victim is the person who wishes they had the time back that they spent reading about it.
Sure, and they'll eat shit in court every time because of that.
When things went down with dailystormer, they were also in court with some big porn company over a torrent site CF was proxying. CF's claim was they were just a web accelerator/cache/firewall, nothing more. They kept claiming they don't/won't censor, etc.
Prince had his fit, yeeted DS. The next frickin' day the porn company brought this new evidence to the courts and I'm fairly sure CF settled.
If CF does this enough times, they'll turn their supposed protective blanket into swiss cheese. At some point they'll have to answer to their investors about why they're pissing away mountains of cash on legal fees and then settling.
For CF, they played the wrong card. This should've been them defending what they feel their business is (a web accelerator, a caching CDN, a firewall, whatever), not if they're defending/against whichever group.
Francisco
Yup.
Every one of the listed did a dick move - though only one also did a dick remove.
OK, I'll see myself out now...
But that's different.
The porn company was not a customer of CF, they had no contract. The porn company defended their rights, which are protected by a shitload of laws. Whether or not CF was the correct target is another question, but there is no doubt that the porn company had the laws on their side.
In this case CF kicked out one of their customers and the question is if they are legally allowed to do so. I claim that there is no law or constitution that says that it is everyone's right to be a CF customer.
I agree that Cloudflare should have stood their ground. I would personally applaud them if they just told people to piss off and take it up with Kiwifarm directly. But that is my moral view of it, not my legal view.
I still claim that legally Cloudflare can tell KF to go f*ck themself. There is no way that Kiwifarm does not break a whole bunch of TOS or AUP's paragraphs and by doing so, they have no contract with Cloudflare anymore.
What occurs, is that every provider has a threshold of how much hassle you are as a customer.
Even hosts from the "old internet" who hold to the idea of free speech still presumably have a "complaint threshold"
Technology has decreased the cost of complaints all around. Twitter has ensured that there are "organic" complaints and public opinion from new media. VOIP and economic call centers have enabled low-cost voice calls.
My perception is that before Cloudflare and similar was prevalent it was the same thing for technological attacks -- when someone could hit your site with reflected terabytes, any sensible host would cut you lose to avoid the fallout, no matter how innocent and virtuous your speech.
Someone is writing up a business plan to take down sites for a quite reasonable fee...
Someone else is coming up with a combination of donations and complaint resolution to shield against the outrage.
This. Same as DDOS protection, having it doesn't mean you'll never terminate a customer for receiving an endless barrage of attacks that raises your average overhead. An outlier that consumes too many resources is usually let go in all hosting avenues, it's the cheapest way to restore balance. Those resources could just as well be legal and social teams, just as much as they could be CPU usage.
But one should of course consider the potential hit to business if it becomes too easy or cheap for a third party to decide for you who you should keep as a customer. That's a bit harder to do long term though, most likely something you try to measure with each success they have. That's why I'd avoid anyone who lets a customer go over a few tweets, for example. I've witnessed that first hand and I'll never trust that company with anything important. Too low overhead for the drop in that case.
This right here is gonna Streisand so fucking hard though: https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/7/23341051/kiwi-farms-internet-archive-backup-removal
I have a lot of respect and admiration for Cloudflare. Both sides deliberately escalated the situation. In doing so, they manipulated Cloudflare into a terrible lose-lose position. Cloudflare reasonably believed that there was an imminent threat of violence or murder to real, targeted individuals. In my opinion, this is so far "over the line" that Cloudflare felt compelled to act.
Cloudflare does not want to be "wishy-washy." They feel that they should not be the one who defines where the line should be. At the same time, they do not want to stand idly by while others use their services to incite violence and murder, with actual violence and murder as the consequence.
Two fundamental moral principles have collided with each other. There is no easy or perfect answer. I am glad I am not in Cloudflare's shoes. They were forced to choose between multiple evils, and they did their best to choose wisely, in a timely manner, under extreme pressure.
First, kindly stop the boring "please enlighten me" game.
(a) I don't give a flying f_ck about the "general consensus among basically everyone you have ever spoken to", I care about the law.
(b) If what you say is true then they got it wrong.
Nope, no matter how strongly you believe otherwise.
The relevant point is that laws by their very nature are somewhat general. What a provider can and should do is to, e.g. in his TOS, offer a more specific language. A restaurant for example might have different specific rules regarding 'abuse' than a hosting provider, but whatever they take 'abuse' to mean in their specific business segment must be within the law.
Another point is to avoid exactly the situation where some customer argues that e.g. using double his monthly traffic volume is OK because he won't use more than 25% during some other months.
Kindly note that "any outgoing traffic beyond XY TB is considered abuse" is within the law but "saying/publishing/making available something we consider unacceptable is considered abuse" is not within the law.
Tell that to a judge if push comes to shove and hope that he agrees with you. And I have bad news for you: he will not move out of the frame provided by the law.
That's, pardon my French, a pile of BS. If their TOS isn't solidly based on the law they'll have a very bad day in court.
Actually, I guess, their real bet is that most of their customers are small or midsize and won't dare or be willing to take on the high costs to go to court against CF. But if one does CF risks to find themselves in severe pain.
Uhm, that's not the point. The point is that CF broke a contract based on TOS that seem to go not only against the law but in fact even against the constitution.
And btw, them saying "but customer accepted the TOS!" is about as worthless as a rapist declaring that the victim left the club with him (implying that she agreed to ...).
The law is relevant - not some rules made by e.g. CF, no matter whether customer did agree or not. An illegal provision doesn't somehow magically become legal and binding because someone agreed to it.
"as adults" ... what a ridiculously vague and meaningless term. But gladly we don't need such kitchen blabla because we have laws.
Uhm no. Freedom of speech is about not having to fear negative consequences/repercussions. Courts tend to be relative lenient when it's about a private context (e.g. husband saying to his wife "you stupid slut!") but they tend to not be lenient at all if someone willfully and evidently ignored the law.
Well, it seems the internet archive serves no purpose anymore, at least not reliably.
What? I seriously want you to enlighten me, otherwise we would not have this discussion.
(a) Well, as far as I can tell the law says so too.
(b) Might be, that's what I'm trying to find out.
If we change the wording to "saying/publishing/making available death threats, insults and slander is considered abuse", would that be OK? There are laws against threats and slander, so I guess that should make it OK to put in a TOS?
So then again, for the third time: all the providers saying things like "chia mining is not allowed" are actually making their TOS useless? I keep asking this and you keep avoiding it. This should be a simple yes or no question.
There is no law against chia mining, so by your logic a TOS can not change that.
In what way? I have not read their TOS, but in what way does CF's TOS go against the constitution?
Not at all. Not even close.
If the rapist clearly had stated "I will rape you if you come with me" and the victim still would go with him, I would kind of agree that there is a point in there somewhere. But leaving the club with someone has never, ever, anywhere meant that you agree to be raped.
Signing a contract that includes a TOS on the other hand usually means that you agree to the TOS. That's basically the whole idea of TOS. And contracts. And signatures.
I know you are trying to make me sound stupid, but really? Trying to get leaving a club with a rapist and signing a contract to imply the same level of agreement? Well, that one is on you.
So again, you seriously claim that any TOS that does not have literal support in the law is useless? Why then do every provider here even bother to have a TOS, and why do all the threads exist where people have been kicked for violating the TOS?
Call me stupid once again, by all means, but I genuinely do not understand. I know you are an intelligent person, there is no way this can seriously be what you are trying to say.
Well, English is not my primary language, so maybe it was a bad choice of words.
But when freedom of speech is used as "I can say whatever I want and people are not allowed to question it" I find it extremely childish, hence the wording. Replace adults with "responsible persons" if that makes you feel better, I think most people get the point.
Wait, what? Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?
You may say something, but if what you say is illegal you will face consequences.
What's the point of internet archive if they delete stuff on their own will?
Maybe we should start burning historical documents cause some find it disturbing?
That's how history works. As has been said many times, if you control the present, you control the past. Scrub history and you're free to reinvent it to suit your means. The only people you have to worry about are those who were taught what actually happened (or a different set of lies) passing that onto their children. I'm just glad these days that people are having lots of children and no global authority would ever want to do something like that.
You didn't read CF's blog post, have you? SMH
You do realize garbage is burned 24/7 around the world? Not all data is important or needs to be saved. You may have noticed the Archive doesn't contain all pages from all of time. Even useful pages.
Kiwifarms.is (Iceland) domain allegedly seized, details unknown.
Google Voice number allegedly blocked, causing major problems. After all that happened, this man still has zero foresight.
For something like 20 years any site owner could retroactively remove all archived content for a domain just by blocking crawlers in robots.txt, it would prevent anyone from viewing the archive. Site owners can still have their sites blocked just by emailing and asking. Probably they also block highly illegal sites. This isn't new.