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
Are we talking about the courts deciding, or the mob/corporations?
Which one is it?
Can't have both.
Which one is it?
Can't have both.
You don't see a clear difference here? Refusing to host a white supremacist neo-nazi site
vs some kids forum? Well, I guess we can't agree here, as you are comparing apples to oranges.
To me it seems you are failing to see the principle.
I've not even clicked on that link (the URL tells me enough) or read anything from the site that was banned, and while I agree that CF probably should terminate anything that it find objectionable, I disagree with the statement that it's a clear example of something that should be banned just because it exists.
You can't unilaterally decide something is bad, and say that everyone must agree. If everyone agreed, that site wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Every provider of any service will make decisions about what services to provide and to who. Usually that's financial (i.e. will we make more money than we can lose), and occasionally it's done out of principles (we believe free speech is more important than profit, or religious ideology, etc). But a service provider should always be free to choose who their customers are.
The cake thing, while very old news now, is something I find particularly egregious. Sure if it was just mailing a pre-made cake to someone, I think it's hard to object to an order based on who the recipient is. But if someone requires a company's skills and expertise to perform specialised work, in that case decorating a cake, then they really should have the right to refuse the work if it goes against their principles. It's not like they are the only business that can supply a cake to celebrate an event with, nor that they even needed a cake at all to celebrate.
Going back to this instance, if your company chooses to host content that offends people so badly that others feel the only solution is to DDOS you, that's entirely on you. Signing up to other companies just to make it their problem, especially if you know beforehand that it will have a massively detrimental affect on their business and their other customers. It's completely fair for these CDN providers to show KF as much respect as KF showed them, and ditch them unceremoniously as soon as it impacts their revenue.
The economics of running a service like that is that you make the profit in the normal times when the site is operating normally, and then you can afford to fight the DDOS attacks when they happen. Moving to a CDN provider in the middle of an attack and when you site is so objectionable there's no imminent prospect of the attack ending is always going to cause the CDN provider to lose money to deal with your problem.
All good and fair arguments.
In practice, that boils down to having a few big companies (fewer and fewer, bigger and bigger) deciding what gets shown, and what gets censored. That's where we're heading now, for better or for worse.
https://computersweden.idg.se/2.2683/1.47011/tre-gripna-nar-polisen-stangde-pirate-bay
Bahnhof hired a room to Trustlab, Trustlab had "connections" to PRQ, registered as owner to TPB domain.
The article mentions Bahnhof letting the police in.
As far as I've seen, dickhood is conferred upon anyone who gets touched by this matter, whether they wanted to get involved themselves, or had nothing to do with it and happened to get sucked in by others.
You're not too smart are you?
Take your libtard logic and go argue with your own kind. You know...the kind who's IQ reaches my shoe size.
Other than bringing attention to yourself, what value does this post serve?
I don't care what this brings to me. The other poster is an moron.
The direction he believes in is his right. Not everyone else's must go to.
That is saying the same thing in different words. In your previous post you told us what you thought of the other poster. Posting it made it apparent that you do not care what it brings to you.
You still did not explain what value it adds to the discussion.
I love how people who support this "person" have nothing to say when it comes to illegal activity like ddos and hacking but somehow they draw the line when someone says something they don't like.
You think Keffals is personally hacking into KiwiFarms? And why the quotes on "person"?
No. She lacks the skills for that. But sure as fuck people are doing it on behalf of her or for her. You figure the quotes out.
My assumption is that you're saying she isn't a person and you want her dead.
That's your assumption. I never said that.
It's a reasonable assumption, since that's how scare quotes are used.
The main reason was that KF users admitted to swatting this keffals person, swat came raiding her house breaking down the door and aiming guns at her, mind you this is in the united kingdom where police seldom do this except for terror threats. Before that keffals did try to bring down KF to no avail, because of the swatting & news in the media because of it, it gave keffals enough momentum to force cloudflare to buckle.
An example of news article https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/trans-twitch-streamer-keffals-says-was-swatted-arrested-police-ontario-rcna42533
Just google keffals swat.
Scare quotes? What? Maybe an hyphen will scare you even more?
Grow up, thank you.
Uh, are you sure it was a "SWAT"ing and not just a search warrant?
If you have screenshots of some of these users admitting to phoning it in, by all means, share.
Francisco
Just to make it clear, I'm not defending either side (i live on the other side of the world where we are more conservative), came across the conclusion due to reading an article that according to keffals, users from kiwi farms tracked her in her hotel and sent pizzas, I assumed that it is in the public domain since a news website reported that.
This article https://www.wired.com/story/keffals-kiwifarms-cloudflare-blocked-clara-sorrenti/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
I don't care about articles. Almost every news site out there has a strong political lean, and wired certainly does.
I want to see these screencaps of Kiwi's admitting to calling into the RCMP asking for a SWAT team to be deployed.
EDIT - As for the pizza's, are you 100% sure that was Kiwi as well, and not 4chan? Sure sounds like a 4chan thing given the "He will not divide us" speed runs.
Francisco
I am not sure, but according to multiple news sources, as alleged by keffals that kiwifarms did it, I am just trying to explain to the person I quoted that keffals gained the power to shut down sites that were a thorn to her side after the swatting attempt.
OK, so you're spitting unconfirmed statements and claiming they're facts. That's where the issue in all of this is.
Truthfully, this is all just massive grifting. You have a no name streamer that failed on countless other projects, finally finding one that pays out. They might claim they want Kiwi gone, but if it did, they would lose that sweet sweet gofundme gravy train.
There was no SWAT'ing, it was a police warrant. They came in, seized their electronics (something that isn't done during a SWATing mind you), and went on their way. At some point they'll get all of their equipment back.
There was no guns pulled on people either, it's fucking Canada.
I hate defending shitty people/places, and kiwi is absolutely in top echelons of shitty places.
It's called grifting.
Francisco
@serv_ee Please keep it civil.
As I'd never heard of the swatting thing, which would be odd if this was in the UK, I read the link you shared (although the clue is also in the URL)
London, Ontario is NOT in the UK.
This is the first time I've heard them called "scare quotes", although "air quotes" has been a popular term for decades.
Your term embues some kind of malice into their use, whereas traditional usage is just to imply skepticism on the claim made therein or imply there's more to it than claimed.
Whilst I think it's odd to use it around person, in this case, I'd have interpreted it as meaning he believes it's more of a meme or ideology than about any individual. At worst, it might be that he thinks their actions are so morally reprehensible that don't deserve to be considered a person any more. I'm not sure this applies here though.
But in any case, where do you get the idea that he wants her dead from? There's absolutely zero in what he said that might imply that.
But that wasn't the case. Just read the Cloudflare blog.
It's sad how obtuse some people are being. SMH