5 ms·

There is at least one CF customer who was doxxed by Kiwifarms after expressing displeasure with Cloudflare's initial decision. CF CEO (eastdakota) blocked this

by Grue3 4y ago

There is at least one CF customer who was doxxed by Kiwifarms after expressing displeasure with Cloudflare's initial decision. CF CEO (eastdakota) blocked this customer when he complained about it [1] So much for free speech + great customer service! [1] https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1565629001862873088 https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1565629001862873088

skissane 4y ago
> CF CEO (eastdakota) blocked this customer when he complained about it GossiTheDog was publicly attacking a deceased former employee of Cloudflare (Jaime Cochran), and eastdakota was offended: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1565575185159204864 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1565575185159204864 I'm pretty sure that's the reason why eastdakota blocked GossiTheDog – not because he was complaining about being doxxed by Kiwifarms
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  You got the name wrong. And the attack was against the GNAA "i'm a nazi" president and online shock-racist employed at Cloudflare at that time, nothing to do with their later death which is none of our business. It was also to remind that Weev claims there is a different GNAA-adjacent sympathizer employed at Cloudflare who is a personal ally to Stormfront.
  - skissane 4y ago
    Cochran is the person that both GossiTheDog and eastdakota were talking about. (I'm not sure about the Jaime vs Jamie spelling – my impression is "Jaime" is what she preferred at the time of her death, so I'm going to go with that – as to why eastdakota and the screen-shotted NBC News story spelled it "Jamie", I don't know – maybe just typos or autocorrect.) My point was that the person I was replying to was either misinformed or disingenuous about eastdakota's reasons for blocking GossiTheDog. I don't see the relevance of the rest of what you are saying to my point.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      The rest is context for readers on who's being defended by the ceo and rest
      - skissane 4y ago
        I think if you used to work with someone, and now they are dead – being upset at people publicly attacking them, when they aren't around to defend themselves, is a very understandable human reaction. eastdakota's reaction here is very human.
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        They weren't attacked, Cf was attacked for employing them and their allies. Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church, besides this. They are under watch. more context on the employee at the time - https://twitter.com/Slendy5127/status/1565764927498903552 https://twitter.com/Slendy5127/status/1565764927498903552 edit because reply is broken: they donated money to Westboro aka GODHATESFAGS[.]COM
        skissane 4y ago
        > They weren't attacked, Cf was attacked for employing them That sentence is illogical. Attacking X's employer for employing X is an attack on X – it is saying that X is unworthy of being employed > Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church You make it sound like they donated money to WBC. From what I understand, at one point they accepted them as a paying customer. WBC is an atrocious organisation, but a business having them as a customer isn't "financial support" – do you apply the same standard to the many other businesses who undoubtedly have WBC and/or its leaders and members among their customers? Who is their cell carrier? What supermarket do they shop at? Which airline do they fly?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        > they donated money to Westboro aka GODHATESFAGS[.]COM Do you have any proof of this?

by Grue3 4y ago

skissane 4y ago

> CF CEO (eastdakota) blocked this customer when he complained about it GossiTheDog was publicly attacking a deceased former employee of Cloudflare (Jaime Cochran), and eastdakota was offended: https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1565575185159204864 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1565575185159204864 I'm pretty sure that's the reason why eastdakota blocked GossiTheDog – not because he was complaining about being doxxed by Kiwifarms

wahnfrieden 4y ago
You got the name wrong. And the attack was against the GNAA "i'm a nazi" president and online shock-racist employed at Cloudflare at that time, nothing to do with their later death which is none of our business. It was also to remind that Weev claims there is a different GNAA-adjacent sympathizer employed at Cloudflare who is a personal ally to Stormfront.
- skissane 4y ago
  Cochran is the person that both GossiTheDog and eastdakota were talking about. (I'm not sure about the Jaime vs Jamie spelling – my impression is "Jaime" is what she preferred at the time of her death, so I'm going to go with that – as to why eastdakota and the screen-shotted NBC News story spelled it "Jamie", I don't know – maybe just typos or autocorrect.) My point was that the person I was replying to was either misinformed or disingenuous about eastdakota's reasons for blocking GossiTheDog. I don't see the relevance of the rest of what you are saying to my point.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    The rest is context for readers on who's being defended by the ceo and rest
    - skissane 4y ago
      I think if you used to work with someone, and now they are dead – being upset at people publicly attacking them, when they aren't around to defend themselves, is a very understandable human reaction. eastdakota's reaction here is very human.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        They weren't attacked, Cf was attacked for employing them and their allies. Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church, besides this. They are under watch. more context on the employee at the time - https://twitter.com/Slendy5127/status/1565764927498903552 https://twitter.com/Slendy5127/status/1565764927498903552 edit because reply is broken: they donated money to Westboro aka GODHATESFAGS[.]COM
        skissane 4y ago
        > They weren't attacked, Cf was attacked for employing them That sentence is illogical. Attacking X's employer for employing X is an attack on X – it is saying that X is unworthy of being employed > Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church You make it sound like they donated money to WBC. From what I understand, at one point they accepted them as a paying customer. WBC is an atrocious organisation, but a business having them as a customer isn't "financial support" – do you apply the same standard to the many other businesses who undoubtedly have WBC and/or its leaders and members among their customers? Who is their cell carrier? What supermarket do they shop at? Which airline do they fly?
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        > they donated money to Westboro aka GODHATESFAGS[.]COM Do you have any proof of this?