Moderation of comments on LEB

jcaleb

@Dionysus said: I know and that also bothers me haha.

haha

Spirit

@pubcrawler said: LEB shouldn't be playing police officer or sleuth unless it is them that is being impacted directly.

When the DDoS happened here, pooling resources from providers and networks made sense. Those details being so public weren't probably a good idea.

All the providers that are butthurt about review need to just respond professionally and move on when someone posts negatives. Much of the complaints falls into two categories: 1. The provider isn't being helpful or doesn't know what they are doing or 2. The user is out of their league and shouldn't be fidgeting with a VPS.

Most people researching will take the time to determine if the complaint is real and if the participants are credible or just insane and thus disregard.

Very good post imho. It sums up nicely most things I would say in much longer post with my terrible english :-)

Maounique

@Spirit said: Very good post imho. It sums up nicely most things I would say in much longer post with my terrible english :-)

I am also on this side, while I work near Salvatore, doesnt mean I changed my general sides as he also shares most of these beliefs:

• I am for privacy;
• I am for freedom of expression (everyone has the right to look stupid);
• I am supporting a pro-user attitude of this site.
  Advetising should be like always just a side-effect, not the goal, if the providers dont like it, should not ask to be featured here.
  M

mikho

@pubcrawler
So when leb/let is the target of a ddos, information should be gathered from providers/networks?
But when its the other way around where providers/networks ask for the favour in return, leb/let should tell them to f*ck off?

Is this understood correct?

[devils advocate]

Still interested in hearing/reading what gets people going

Nekki

@MikHo

Maybe I'm thinking about this is too simplistic terms, but I don't see how the situations are comparable.

Spirit

@MikHo said: But when its the other way around where providers/networks ask for the favour in return, leb/let should tell them to f*ck off?

Wait, wait... I must admit that I don't get you completely. When LEB is under attack you gather info from your host about IPs, correct? If there are attacker IPs from other hosts then you contact also those other hosts for info or report. But... What this have to do with some RANDOM people under potential attack from some other RANDOM people in correlation with LEB? What will you provide then? You're saying that it's ok to send some random people on request private IPs of some other people which appears to be posters here? Because yes, in this case people are only posters here.

pubcrawler

The DDoS issue in my opinion likely had more going on than what we heard outside here.

Bunch of providers were mixed up in the mess. Unclear why everyone of them was involved and to what capacity. Let's not dig up that dead issue for rehash

If a provider is under attack, it is their baby to sit. Why ask LET for info? Cause you believe a bad guy is a poster on the site? Nah, that doesn't cut it.

It's like me saying someone shorted me $5 and I believe I might find it hiding in your billing system. It's a stretch, invasive and might violate laws in European countries.

I'd like to see LEB take the right step to anonymize their logs after 30 days. Meaning drop all the IP info after 30 days. No real honest use for it. Most people collect it either to monetize on it or just because they are data horde pigs.

mikho

@Nekki
Sorry, are you talking about the comparison between a ddos on leb/let and a provider ?

@Spirit
Not talking about RANDOM people.

@pubcrawler
Agree, no need to dwell in the past.

Spirit

@MikHo said: Not talking about RANDOM people.

Of course you do.

(again, everyone is just poster here)