Talk:Cloudflare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors  
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.
 

Request for Comment: Cloudflare Controversy section[edit]

Should the "Controversies" section include an introductory paragraph above the separate criticism sub-sections? Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • No. As discussed above, I have COI as an employee of Cloudflare. The first section of the ‘Controversies’ section reads like the introduction to an advocacy essay taking a POV. Someone with a contrary free-speech POV could frame this paragraph in the opposite way e.g. by describing “continuous” defense of free speech in the face of public pressure. The paragraph consists of a synthesis of various separate events to create an original analysis in violation of WP:NOR. Its analysis fails WP:Impartial and WP:NPOV. Likewise, the paragraph has WP:WEASEL violations and extensive WP:COATRACKING in WP:FOOTNOTES to establish a POV rather than a clarification of the sourcing needed to understand the statement for purpose of verification, the test for using quotes in WP:FOOTNOTES. On a practical basis, the paragraph is also made completely redundant by the subsections covering the same subjects immediately below. Having an introduction above specific event subsections within a “Controversy” or “Criticism” section is not something I could find in WP: Featured Articles. See Cracker Barrel#Controversies and BAE Systems#Criticism.
The analysis is also done poorly. The language “facilitation of terrorism, crime, and hate speech” is an WP:Opinion violation and should not be stated as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. This is a particularly egregious violation of NPOV as it essentially asserts Cloudflare is committing crimes, which Cloudflare has never been charged with and flatly denies. The characterization of “continuous controversy” is also not found in the cited sources.
The paragraph has a general lack of precision. One example is what the words “a stance it has defended” refer to. Facing controversy? Alleged ”facilitation” of terrorism? Crime? The cited sources for “stance” of “free speech” do not encompass all these disparate criticisms. Similarly the words “content neutrality” are relevant to speech, but not necessarily crimes. The general lack of precision is found everywhere: e.g. only ISIS and the Taliban are “sanctioned extremist groups” according to the Department of State. The others, such as “mass murders” and “Neo-Nazi” are not “sanctioned extremist groups” Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes It is not unusual to have a summary of subsections or other contextual information like this. The basic point that Couldflare has faced ongoing criticism for the organizations and content it facilitates is directly supported by the references and saying so in this intro is not synthesis. Certainly there is room for WP:NPOV improvements and elimination of repetition of material covered in subsections but there is no problem providing this context and summary at the beginning of the section. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kvng: Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s possible for a Controversy section to have an acceptable introduction (I found no intros to Controversy section on FAs or GAs but I couldn't look at everything) this introduction still doesn’t meet basic acceptability for Wikipedia language. It’s filled with WP:NPOV, WP: Weasel, WP: Coatracking, and WP:NOR, as well as repetition. It should be deleted on these grounds since it so clearly violates a variety of Wikipedia policies. Very bad content shouldn’t be left up because, in theory, someone might be able to do some acceptable version in the future.Ryanknight24 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since as an RfC this section has only attracted one participant, I have removed the RfC template and I suggest this topic simply be continued as a discussion. User: Kvng has said that he believes it is fine for there to be an introduction to a Controversy section. But they have also said the present introduction has NPOV and repetition issues. So here is a proposed substitute introduction that briefly covers the information below it, while abiding by NPOV, minimizing repetition, synthesis, and eliminating unreliable sourcing. Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloudflare has been criticized for not banning websites with hate speech content, such as 8chan[1] and The Daily Stormer from usings its services.[2] But it has also been criticized for limiting free speech when it eventually banned The Daily Stormer in 2017.[3] The company has said it has a content neutrality policy and that it opposes the policing of its customers on free speech grounds, except in cases where the customers break the law.[4][5][6] Cloudflare banned 8chan from using its services in 2019.[7] The company has also faced criticism for not banning websites allegedly connected to terrorism groups[8], but Cloudflare has maintained that no law enforcement agency has asked the company to discontinue these services and it closely monitors its obligations under U.S. laws.[9]

@Kvng: Any feedback? Ryanknight24 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ryanknight24: this looks like an improvement in that it is more of a summary than what we currently have. There is a potential false balance issue here in that approximately equal weight is given to the complaints and the counter arguments from Coundflare and supporters. I suspect there's actually more fire than water here. I'm going to try and use WP:3O to attract some more eyes. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. This whole Controversies section seems like overkill. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this massive section is WP:UNDUE. I think the section should be heavily trimmed. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I have adapted Ryanknight24's contribution as a new introduction to the controversies section.
I don't think Pyrrho the Skeptic's assessment, come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, accurately summarizes the issue. The amount of reporting on these controversies is enough easily meet notability requirements for a stand-alone article. If the section is trimmed, there would be ample material to create a separate Cloudflare controversies article. ~Kvng (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
But is that really a goal? To have two one-sided articles, "Cloudflare: Good!" and "Cloudflare: Bad!" neither particularly representing the whole of the situation? Or, at smaller scale, the false balance problem that you cite, within a single article? News about Cloudflare isn't an external calamity befalling Cloudflare that has to be balanced or judged by Wikipedia editors, it's reportage by journalists of Cloudflare's actions, aggregated into a summary article. Ultimately the content of the article is the indirect product of Cloudflare's actions, and no one else's. Wikipedia isn't a mechanism for getting a do-over when you're embarrassed by something you've done. It's just an encyclopedia. EVhotrodder (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be best to keep it all in this article but if a consensus of editors decided to aggressively trim the Security and privacy issues and Controversies sections here, a "Cloudflare: Bad!" article could be created in response. ~Kvng (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I, for one, don't think either censoring the Security and privacy or Controversies sections, or splitting the article, is warranted. As long as everything is factual and supported by citations, I think this article is fine. Nothing's going to please everyone, particularly if they have a connection to the subject. It's not our job to please people who have connection to their subjects, it's our job to maintain factual articles. RLMcGinley (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wong, Julia Carrie (4 August 2019). "8chan: the far-right website linked to the rise in hate crimes". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  2. ^ Schwencke, Ken (4 May 2017). "How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web". ProPublica. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  3. ^ "Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF". BBC News. 18 August 2017. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
  4. ^ Hill, Kashmir (17 August 2014). "The Company Keeping Your Favorite (And Least Favorite) Websites Online". Forbes. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  5. ^ "CloudFlare CEO blasts Anonymous claims of ISIS terrorist support". The Register. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  6. ^ Peterson, Becky (17 August 2017). "Cloudflare CEO explains his emotional decision to punt The Daily Stormer and subject it to hackers: I woke up 'in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet'". Business Insider. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  7. ^ Taylor, Josh; Wong, Julia Carrie (4 August 2019). "Cloudflare cuts off far-right message board 8chan after El Paso shooting". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  8. ^ "Web services firm CloudFlare accused by Anonymous of helping Isis". The Guardian. 19 November 2015. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  9. ^ "CloudFlare CEO blasts Anonymous claims of ISIS terrorist support". The Register. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 16 September 2021.

July 29 - August 8 2021 anonymous edits[edit]

I note that there's an edit-war going on between anonymous editors from IP addresses which are only or primarily only editing this article. (Specifically 39.162.186.176, 47.35.74.72 and 5.91.249.104.) I am specifically not discussing the relative merits of the various edits, but instead addressing the issue of principle, since the article has been acknowledged to be a controversial one, and this isn't improving the quality of the article. Is this something that deserves editorial dampening? EVhotrodder (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is turning into a smear page. Over half the word count is "controversies" and "Issues". I personally feel like these are motivated edits, not to improve the article, but to slant it towards the editor's beliefs.
I've been thinking about writing some more content on their platform and their history, as I just wouldn't know where to start with removing anything from the controversies section. At least then it would be a little more balanced. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I would argue against trying to achieve "balance" by hiding facts or by trying to achieve some ratio of "pro" and "con" that suits you. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that deal with difficult subjects, and they don't do so by shying away from the facts, even when the subjects of the articles have, as in this case, full-time public relations and damage-control staff dedicated to arguing that facts should be hidden. Take a look at, for instance Blackwater or Augusto Pinochet or Tonton Macoute or Enron or IG Farben or Lehman Brothers or Monsanto or the Sackler family or Rio Tinto or Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe. If you feel that you can improve the article by only writing about things that you think portray Cloudflare in a flattering light, how does that differ from "trying to slant it toward your beliefs?" I don't think the goal here is to have 50% of the word count be "pro Cloudflare" facts and 50% of the word count be "anti Cloudflare" facts... I think the goal is to have an article that accurately captures the facts as they're reported by independent news sources. In whatever ratio independent news sources deem newsworthy. EVhotrodder (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Balancing the article - Controversies & "Issues"[edit]

As noted in my last comment, this article has become extremely slanted. The word count ratio for controversies/security issues compared to everything else is way out of hand. This company provides services to many millions of sites every day with almost no issues and occasionally have bad clients make the news, but these issues are not worth 60+% of the word count. If Facebook or another large tech company had every "security issue" or controversy listed on their main page, they would be hundred thousand word articles.

Before I jump in and start making edits, a discussion on appropriate changes would be beneficial. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP content is based on reporting in reliable secondary sources. It should not be a surprise that there is little reporting on services to many millions of sites every day with almost no issues and ample reporting on controversies. We can't use WP:UNDUE to create the balance you're looking for if that balance is not representative of the reporting. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If this is the case, then either summarizing/condensing or splitting these issues into their own article should be in order. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's motivation for a WP:SPLIT. You're flirting with WP:POVFORK with such a proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said above in the RfC, the Controversies section is overkill and WP:UNDUE. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors. I think it needs to be heavily trimmed or split as suggested here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, you're very right that it's not uncommon for Internet software companies to come under scrutiny for abuses. And here's an example of how it can be covered. The fact that a company also does routine transactions does not somehow nullify other newsworthy events. Commerce isn't infinite and opaque wallpaper to be spread over things you consider shameful. It's just commerce. EVhotrodder (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: @Trifecta64: @Pyrrho the Skeptic: @EVhotrodder: As a starter, I took a close look at the current subsection titled “Hate Speech” in the “Controversies” section. I agree that much of the subsection violates WP:DUE. Much of it also violates WP:NPOV, verifiability and WP:COATRACKING. I have already disclosed my COI above.

First, I think the subsection should be moved to the top of this Controversies section, since it is the Controversy issue that has received the most press attention and it the longest.

  •  Done: These controversies seem to get the most press coverage Trifecta64 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Second, I think it should be renamed from “Hate Speech” to “Free Speech Debate”. Cloudflare has been the subject of criticism from both sides - internet activists opposed to blocking any websites and activists calling on the company to revoke services for websites that have hate speech. I think “Free Speech Debate” frames the issue in a more neutral manner than “Hate Speech.”

  •  Done: In light of balancing the article, "Free Speech Debate" is more appropriate than "Hate Speech" Trifecta64 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Third, to abide by WP:Undue, here is an alternate version of the subsection text for discussion. I kept in mind that there is already an introduction to the Controversies subsections that covers some of the same ground as this section so it does not need to be repeated twice in the same section. Also, there is an extended discussion of the 8chan issue in the “Mass Shootings” section, so I did not include that in this subsection, since repetition of the same content twice is WP:Undue. Below the alternate version, I provide detail on the other policy violations with the current version.

In the wake of the August 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, which resulted in the murder of a counter-protestor, Cloudflare came under criticism for providing services to websites that were linked with hate groups, such as The Daily Stormer.[1] The company was criticized for facilitating hate speech by refusing to police content on client websites.[2][3] Following the criticism, Cloudflare stopped providing its services to The Daily Stormer in August 2017. CEO Matthew Prince said the tipping point came when The Daily Stormer falsely claimed that Cloudflare was covertly supporting their ideology.[4][5] Critics of the decision said it was a “slippery slope” that might lead to “censorship of less offensive speech.”[6] The Electronic Frontier Foundation said that services such as Cloudflare “should not be adjudicating what speech is acceptable”, adding that “when illegal activity, like inciting violence or defamation, occurs, the proper channel to deal with it is the legal system.”[4][7] Prince said The Daily Stormer ban was not a precedent and the company would remain “content neutral.”[7]

Review of individual issues with the existing subsection:

1. Many citations cherry pick very long, out-of-context quotations that are used to attack the company in violation of WP: NPOV; all these citation quotations support the censorship POV rather than “content neutrality” POV; many are also WP:COATRACKING. None are needed to provide excerpts from hard-to-access or read articles as per WP:FQ. Therefore, the alternative version above uses standard citations without quotations.

2. First paragraph of the current subsection, first sentence: None of the sources provided in this sentence discuss LulzSec or 8chan. Lulzsec is a hacking group and the Cloudflare incident was unrelated to hate speech. [1] There are available sources for the 8chan controversy, but it is already discussed at length in “Mass shootings” and should not be repeated in two subsections.

  •  Done: This is now simplified Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

3. First paragraph, second sentence: The sources are about 8chan, which is already covered in the Mass Shootings section. It’s repetition here. If Wikipedia covers it here, Mass Shootings should be deleted as a subsection and integrated into this subsection.

  •  Done: Removed for reasons described Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

4. First paragraph, third sentence: the Ars Technica source which is cited in the third sentence of this paragraph doesn’t say anything about Section 230, or that Cloudflare is granted “broad legal immunity” by that provision.

  •  Done: Removed Section 230 Ref Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

5. Second paragraph of the current subsection, first sentence: This sentence repeats information provided already in the first paragraph.

6. Second paragraph, fourth sentence: This sentence has three citations, one of which is a self-published Cato Institute think tank report; a second is a blogpost from Stanford University, failing WP:RS. Similar content is preserved in the alternate version, supported by secondary sources.

7. Third paragraph of the current subsection: This entire paragraph is based on a single, marginal local news source. The inclusion of a single online petition campaign that received no mainstream media coverage is WP:UNDUE.

  •  Done: Removed entirely as no credible sources could be found Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

8. Final paragraph of the current subsection: This entire paragraph concerns a high-profile case of online bullying that was connected with the suicide of a prominent programmer. While the incident in question is certainly deplorable, it does not really fall under the heading either of “hate speech” or of “free speech debates”. Moreover, since Cloudflare was peripheral to the controversy surrounding the suicide, inclusion of this incident is WP:UNDUE. Other issues with this paragraph include:

  • The second sentence of the final paragraph says Cloudflare hosted Kiwi Farms but the sources do not say this; one says Cloudflare provides security services. The other three do not even mention Cloudflare.
  • The third sentence in the final paragraph is irrelevant to the question of free speech/hate speech controversies concerning Cloudflare, and as such constitutes a WP:COATRACKING violation.
  • The last sentence in the final paragraph is simply an unsubstantiated claim that lacks any citation to support it. Ryanknight24 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now to check this work so I'll WP:AGF but I would like to learn more about Trifecta64. Their edit history raises WP:SPA or WP:SOCK concerns for me. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like you to check the work. I've made minor revisions on this article as I believe the rest is open for discussion, and better suited for more experienced editors. I have no COI with Cloudflare, and admittedly, am not a very active editor. I have an account to read the talk pages as they provide insights to validity of articles and content, which is useful in my line of work. This article has inspired me to take a more initiative to contribute to Wikipedia, and I will be spending more time working on a more diverse range of articles/edits. Given the controversial nature of this particular article and proposed changes, I will likely be refraining from further edits for the time being. Trifecta64 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This does look awfully suspicious and coordinated. I think the edits are fine, but I suspect further attempts to edit the controversy section might lead to further investigation, so keep that mind. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not coordinated. I use Cloudflare services for my website, but otherwise I have no COI. As I said, I will not be making any further edits. There is too much in this section for a single editor and still discussions that need to take place. Trifecta64 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pyrrho the Skeptic: and @Kvng:. I have no idea who User: Trifecta64 is. I have a long-time disclosed COI as an employee of Cloudflare and while this account is mine alone, I am the only person designated by Cloudflare to participate on Talk. The Trifecta account is not connected to me or coordinated by Cloudflare in any way. I'd request that another editor look at the approved requests made by Trifecta64 since their account has only a handful of edits. If this person does work for Cloudflare (which has 2500 employees), I'd ask that they stop participating on this page, since there already is a designated Cloudflare employee (me) making requests, and that they disclose any COI. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


@Pyrrho the Skeptic:, @Kvng: I wanted to see if either of you would like to address Request Edit #8 above since you have been the two most recent participants on Talk. The Request deals with the final paragraph of what is now the “Free Speech Debate” subsection of the “Controversies” section. The paragraph focuses on an incident involving the suicide of a programmer who had been bullied on a website called Kiwi Farms. As I explained above, it is WP: UNDUE for a controversy in which Cloudflare is only a bit player to be included in the Wikipedia article. Cloudflare services about 10% of all internet requests [2] and is constantly going to be mentioned as a service provider in press coverage that is primarily about their clients. The editor here has tried to make this event seem like a better-sourced, more important event than it really is relative to Cloudflare by including 4 of 7 sources that do not even mention the company.[8][9][10][11]

In addition, there is distortion and inaccuracy throughout: The first sentence, which begins with the claims that “In June 2021, there were calls for Cloudflare to cut off service for the website Kiwi Farms…” is a classic case of WP:WEASEL. Of the two sources cited in support of that claim, one does not mention Cloudflare at all,[12] while the other cites only a single anonymous letter, thought to be written by a friend of the dead programmer, which pushed for Cloudflare to take action against Kiwi Farms. There were not “calls” (plural), the language used in the current version of the article in an attempt to pump up a controversy.[13]

In the second sentence, none of the sources support the statement that the programmer’s suicide is the third one “Kiwi Farms has been tied to “while hosted by Cloudflare” (emphasis mine). The sentence is a WP:SYNTH of several articles, most of which do not even mention Cloudflare. One article from Gizmodo states there have been three suicides tied to Kiwi Farms and then cites an anonymous complaint, said to be written by a friend of “Near”, which places some responsibility for their suicide. on Cloudflare and Dreamhost. But the Gizmodo article does not say all three suicides took place while Cloudflare was a vendor. There’s no source for this. Furthermore, the claim that Cloudflare “hosted” Kiwi Farms has been invented out of whole cloth (Cloudflare does not host websites; it provides network security); none of the sources say this, and several explicitly mention that another company, DreamHost, was the actual host for Kiwi Farms.[14][15]

The third sentence in the paragraph is not about this controversy at all. It’s about a DDoS attack on Kiwi Farms and an attempted extortion of Kiwi. A source mentions Cloudflare but is not specific about its role here, although one can presume it was acting as a network security vendor at the time of the attack.[16] As Cloudflare provides DDoS protection to 10% of the entire internet, it’s routine news WP:NOTNEWS that a few Cloudflare clients are the subjects of temporarily successful DDoS attacks. Absent significant coverage focused on Cloudflare, this fails NOTNEWS.

Finally, many citations in this paragraph cherry pick very long, out-of-context quotations that are used to attack the company in violation of WP: NPOV:[17][18][19][20] For these reasons, the paragraph should be removed. Thanks very much for your consideration. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I support removing the paragraph. It is not critical material and it needs work if it is going to stay. I'm not willing to volunteer to do the work required to keep it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree it can be removed. The issues with it that have been pointed out are valid, in my opinion. I will do that now. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done by Pyrrho the Skeptic ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Swartz, Jon (16 August 2017). "Cloudflare CEO explains why it finally booted neo-Nazi site". USA Today. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  2. ^ Wong, Julia Carrie (August 28, 2017). "The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?". The Guardian. London. Retrieved August 22, 2019.
  3. ^ Schwencke, Ken (4 May 2017). "How One Major Internet Company Helps Serve Up Hate on the Web". ProPublica. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  4. ^ a b Johnson, Steven (January 16, 2018). "Inside Cloudflare's Decision to Let an Extremist Stronghold Burn". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved August 5, 2019.
  5. ^ Peterson, Becky (17 August 2017). "Cloudflare CEO explains his emotional decision to punt The Daily Stormer and subject it to hackers: I woke up 'in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet'". Business Insider.
  6. ^ Lee, Timothy B. (31 August 2017). "Tech companies declare war on hate speech—and conservatives are worried". Ars Technica.
  7. ^ a b Shaban, Hamza (August 18, 2017). "Banning neo-Nazis online may be slippery slope, tech group warns Silicon Valley". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 6, 2019.
  8. ^ "USA TODAY". www.usatoday.com. Archived from the original on 2021-07-23. Retrieved 2021-07-29.
  9. ^ Wright, Steven T. (2021-06-28). "The Highly-Respected Emulator Developer Near Has died". Gamespot. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  10. ^ "The Brilliant SNES Emulator Author Known As Near Has Died". Kotaku. 2021-06-27. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  11. ^ Irorita, Franz Christian (2021-06-28). "Near, creator of SNES emulators bsnes and higan, has died". Clutchpoints. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  12. ^ "USA TODAY". www.usatoday.com. Archived from the original on 2021-07-23. Retrieved 2021-07-29.
  13. ^ Klepek, Patrick (29 June 2021). "What I Learned From Near, an Emulation Legend and Real Person". Vice. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  14. ^ Klepek, Patrick (29 June 2021). "What I Learned From Near, an Emulation Legend and Real Person". Vice. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  15. ^ Wodinsky, Shoshana (2021-06-29). "The Worst Site on the Web Gets DDoS'd After Being Connected to Prominent Developer's Suicide". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  16. ^ Valens, Ana. "Stalking forum Kiwi Farms went down after DDoS attack, owner claims". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  17. ^ Klepek, Patrick (29 June 2021). "What I Learned From Near, an Emulation Legend and Real Person". Vice. Retrieved 29 June 2021. That same friend called on Cloudflare to take action. Cloudflare did not respond, but DreamHost did, saying that Kiwi Farms uses Cloudfare's technology to hide its actual hosting company, but offered to 'review and forward any abuse reports submitted to Cloudflare to the site's current web host and website owner.' The catch-22 here, of course, is that DreamHost is explicitly promising that another company will forward your report of abuse to the owner of a website whose entire purpose is to enact abuse. Even going through the motions of attempting to report Kiwi Farms could open people to harassment.
  18. ^ Wodinsky, Shoshana (2021-06-29). "The Worst Site on the Web Gets DDoS'd After Being Connected to Prominent Developer's Suicide". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 July 2021. Kiwi Farms—an online forum best known for harboring stalkers, white supremacists, and being one of the worst cesspits the internet has to offer—was taken offline temporarily on Tuesday in a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. The alleged attack comes after the site was implicated in the recent suicide of Near, a beloved developer in the emulator community. Hector Martin shared a heartbreaking letter written by a close friend of Near’s that explained some of the more explicit details of Near’s death. The letter called out DreamHost and Cloudflare—Kiwi Farms' domain registrar and web network security provider—for sharing responsibility in driving their friend to suicide.
  19. ^ Irorita, Franz Christian (2021-06-28). "Near, creator of SNES emulators bsnes and higan, has died". Clutchpoints. Retrieved 1 July 2021. The escalating harassment experienced by Near, particularly by Kiwi Farms, led to their death. Kiwi Farms is an American Internet Forum focused on trolling, harassing, and doxing people they deem to be 'lolcows,' or people that can be milked for laughs. Kiwi Farms has been linked to the deaths of Chloe Sagal in 2018 as well as being implicated in the sharing of live streams and videos of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings.
  20. ^ Valens, Ana. "Stalking forum Kiwi Farms went down after DDoS attack, owner claims". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 1 July 2021. Kiwi Farms, dubbed the internet’s “biggest community of stalkers” by New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, has gone dark. An enormous distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack brought Kiwi Farms down. Joshua Conner Moon announced that Kiwi Farms was undergoing a 'sustained DDoS attack of 1Gbps for several hours.' 'I am trying to sort out a long-term solution with Cloudflare and other peers who can filter traffic more effectively. I’m in talks with other people interested in long term alternatives to Cloudflare so it’ll get sorted eventually. Other alternatives will include buying more capable hardware and just dealing with it myself,' Moon wrote.

Reverting COI edits[edit]

I am a new employee of Cloudflare. I recently made a bunch of edits to this article, which I am now reversing. I was unaware of the conflict of interest policy rules until today, and also did not realize that another person who had already disclosed that they work for Cloudflare was active on the Talk page.

Because I made many edits, I will reverse the page to the state it was in on December 12th, the latest version prior to when I started. I hope that this will resolve my mistake, and if any additional steps are needed to fix things I will be happy to take care of them as directed. I will not edit this page again, and I apologize.