There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

electricprism ,

Fuck CloudFlare – I don’t like monopolies or monopolike.

cupcakezealot ,
@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

reminder that cloudflare routinely works with white supremacist and other hate sites to protect them and have most recently refused to stop hosting kiwi farms, as they were doxxing and threatening trans people

kilgore_trout ,

They don’t “work with white supremacists”. They try to self-polish the tremendous power the have, seeking neutrality in most cases.

uis ,

THIS MESSAGE (MATERIAL) CREATED AND (OR) DISTRIBUTED WITH PURPOSE OF HATE AND (OR) ENCOURAGING HATE.

You forgot to put it.

I heavilt dislike cloudflare, but this is not valid reason to hate them.

casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer ,

You have it wrong, which really shows what you stand for:

Cloudflare refused to block KiwiFarms as there was no evidence of criminal activity or violation of their policies, and doing so would tarnish their reputation in regards to free speech. They did stop hosting KiwiFarms, in September of 2022 (you can find their statement here) in response to a libelous pressure campaign ran by Keffals when she/they/it found out users were pulling out receipts of it engaging in lewd conversation with minors and providing them with DIY hormone replacement therapy kits without any medical oversight or parental consent.

And KF did not attack Keffals out of nowhere, it was only after she started engaging with Chris-chan as she was attempting to use him to boost her own reputation at a time when he was already in a perilous mind.

I’m not sure exactly where you got the “threatening trans people” from, that is the first I’ve heard of it. I know of one incident that is much more grave and potentially what you are referring to, but your reference leaves out almost the entire context of that one particular incident and there have been no repeats of it to my knowledge.

I’m not a fan of KiwiFarms, but they did not earn their censorship. It was the result of a successful attempt by a revisionist career troll to cover their tracks when they realized their goose was about to get cooked, nothing more. If you truly stand for free speech, you would realize just how dangerous the precedent set by such an unreliable source as Keffals is.

And yes, I realize that if my comment gains enough traction, it and its army will be at my throat and by no doubt have doxxed me in no time if they so choose. But that’s not going to keep me from preventing people like you from twisting the narrative.

Clbull ,

The same place that regularly bullies and bear-baits ‘lulcows’ for entertainment? The same people who bullied an autistic adult over a shitty Sonic fan character webcomic?

Duamerthrax , (edited )

You’re describing Twitter and Facebook as well.

robocall ,
@robocall@lemmy.world avatar

Nice! A topical meme relevant to today’s top Lemmy story!

uis ,

I haven’t seen the story yet.

sfxrlz ,

programming.dev/post/14669153

uis ,

Thanks

dan ,
@dan@upvote.au avatar

What is a “top” story on Lemmy, given everyone subscribes to different communities? Is it the most popular across all communities?

radicalautonomy ,
@radicalautonomy@lemmy.world avatar

I won five grand from an online casino in 2001, and they not only paid me my winnings, they also included an extra $262 in comps for having bet aggregately over a quarter of a million dollars. That money went a long way for my early-20s ass. Paid off a credit card and bought a new mattress for me and my new wife.

When Full Tilt Poker got shut down by the DOJ, though, I was sort of okay with it. There were waaaaay too many action flops for those hands to have been truly randomized.

Draedron ,

Gambling ruines lifes. Just because people can get their win does not mean it should be defended in any case. These casinos intentionally make people addicted, causing so much suffering and death.

radicalautonomy , (edited )
@radicalautonomy@lemmy.world avatar

These casinos intentionally make people addicted, causing so much suffering and death.

Noted, but so does alcohol and you can find it almost everywhere. Most people have the capacity to exercise caution when engaging in potentially addictive behaviors. Unless we intend to ban everything that could cause addiction and lead to destruction of a person’s life (gambling, alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, claw machines, loot boxes…), then we have to let people make their own choices and be responsible for their own decisions. When it becomes apparent to a person that they have an addiction, it is their own responsibility to tend to it.

Jtotheb ,

Sure was nice of the state to require your 2001 online casino to list in writing the odds of winning and enforce payment. But sure, they did you a favor and the state is bad, people are solo acts and you should be free to prey on the less powerful

radicalautonomy ,
@radicalautonomy@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, because that’s just what I said.

Jtotheb ,

Sorry, I’ll extrapolate more precisely.

Casinos spend unfathomable resources on learning exactly how to wedge their ads deep into your mind and get you hooked on their satisfying little dopamine loops, but it’s your personal failure if you, an ordinary person who is statistically speaking living paycheck to paycheck raising a kid with no savings, succumb to them. And your responsibility to fix it.

Correct?

thermal_shock ,

you can defend casinos as long as you treat it as entertainment and don’t bet your entire life savings on it and cry about it

I set my initial bet amount, once that’s gone my game is done. on the other side if I double it my game is done

Draedron ,

No you cant defend them. If you dont get addicted easily, good for you. They prey on those that do

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

they also included an extra $262 in comps for having bet aggregately over a quarter of a million dollars.

Why do you have credit card debt that had to wait for a 5k gambling “windfall” if you can afford to slowly spunk 250k up the wall at the same gambling sites?

you have a problem… you are an addict…

I can’t figure out if this is a joke post or not

dyc3 ,

I think what he means is that he bet some money, won, and then used that to bet again, repeat and eventually the aggregate bets made totalled to be 250k.

radicalautonomy ,
@radicalautonomy@lemmy.world avatar

This. Granted I was 24 and not great with money as my wife and I had about $1500 in credit card debt, but once or twice a year I’d put down $50 for a little fun money and play at an online casino for no more than a week or until the $50 was gone. The first time I tried, I managed to use a modified Martingale system for several days and worked it up to five grand before cashing out. Was never successful at making anything close to that again, but I never played with or lost more than I could afford.

Today, apart from a car note I took on two weeks ago after a car I drove 200,000 miles over the past 14 years finally gave out, I am debt free and have been since 2016, and I genuinely can’t remember the last time I went to the casino. But, when I did, I brought $200, lost it but had my fun, and went home. No addiction whatsoever.

radicalautonomy ,
@radicalautonomy@lemmy.world avatar

Because I was 24 years old and I put $50 on a debit card and managed to pump it up to $5000 and it was a one-off occurrence more than two decades ago? Relax.

thermal_shock ,

he learned from his mistake chill the fuck out

suction ,

What exactly has Cloudflare done to those poor casino thugs, they were only trying to extract more money from gambling addicts?!?

CanadaPlus , (edited )

What’s the problem with CloudFlare? They’re trying to make a profit, and so in the long run are the same as anybody, but every interaction I’ve had with them recently has left me impressed.

Edit: The answer is that the way their thing works nullifies HTTPS.

HowManyNimons OP ,

RIP your inbox. Enjoy a whole lot of self-righteous lectures in business ethics.

redcalcium ,

Remember when google was beloved by everyone back then when they’re still have “don’t be evil” motto? Cloudflare right now is like google back then: super useful, provides a lot of free services that would be expensive on other providers. But unlike google, if cloudflare go full evil in the future, the impact will be much larger because they’re an mitm proxy capable of seeing unencrypted traffics across all websites under their wing. Right now they’re serving ~30% of top 10,000 websites and growing.

CanadaPlus ,

Oh, okay, so I’m not wrong that they’re good right now.

I’m a little unclear on how it works. Do they strip off HTTPS somehow? Otherwise, there’s not too much unencrypted traffic around anymore.

redcalcium , (edited )

Do they strip off HTTPS somehow?

Well yes, how else they can provide their services such as page caching, image optimizing, email address obfuscation, js minifications, ddos mitigation, etc unless they can see all data flowing between your server and your visitors in the clear?

Cloudflare is basically an MITM proxy. This blog post might be helpful if you want to know how mitm proxy works in general: …medium.com/how-the-mitm-proxy-works-8a329cc53fb

CanadaPlus ,

Jesus Christ, I didn’t realise.

markstos ,

One of the services they provide is free SSL certificates. As part of that, they have the private key to decrypt the traffic. They aren’t trying to hide that— this is true of any service that hosts the SSL cert for your site.

SugarSnack ,

Does that mean it wouldn’t be an issue if you bring an SSL cert from say ZeroSSL but use Cloudflare for DNS, caching, DDoS protection etc?

SirQuackTheDuck ,

For DNS and DDoS protection that wouldn’t directly be an issue.

For caching it would be breaking. You cannot cache what you cannot read (encrypted traffic can only be cached by the decrypting party).

markstos ,

It’s not who issues the cert that matters, it is who hosts it. Hosting it includes having the private key. You always have to trust your website host, full stop.

CanadaPlus ,

Man, I thought we were done with this shit when HTTPS became standard.

markstos ,

With what? HTTPS has to terminate the encryption somewhere and that place has to have the private key to do so.

CloudFlare is providing the same service here as all other hosts of HTTPS websites do.

CanadaPlus ,

Well, depends. If it’s hosted on AWS and HTTPS terminates there like it’s supposed to, Amazon could look inside, but a human being would have to personally hack your container and extract the data, so that’s a bit better. If it’s something more like Wix, though, sure. (Is Wix still a thing?)

markstos ,

If you use the AWS load balancer product or their certificates, they have access to the private key, regardless of whether you forward traffic from the LB to the container over HTTPS or not.

If you terminate the SSL with your own certificate yourself, Amazon still installs the SSM agent by default on Linux boxes. That runs as root and they control it.

If you disable the SSM agent and terminate SSL within Linux boxes you control at AWS, then I don’t think they can access inside your host as long as you are using encrypted EBS volumes encrypted with your key.

CanadaPlus ,

Obviously, I’ve never actually done this. Good to know.

I’m starting to worry that HTTPS is entirely fake - in the sense that it’s purely decorative encryption that protects an insignificant part of the transaction. Like, maybe by design. The NSA’s been doing something all these years.

markstos ,

HTTPS is real and tested.

CanadaPlus ,

When used as intended, yes. What I mean is that in practice it may have been weakened, by promotion of services that use it in ways far from best security practices.

dessalines ,

You have no proof that they’re “good right now”. The big five corporations were forwarding data to the NSA for years before the surveillance leaks exposed them.

Your privacy default should not be to trust an MITM, ever.

dessalines ,

There’s no proof they aren’t doing anything nefarious with that data right now, other than company statements saying, “trust us”.

People default to trusting giant corporations first it seems.

Crashumbc ,

Their a corporation, at best they’re baby Hitler…

dessalines ,

I’m not sure if this is ironic bc I’ve been exposed to too many irony-poisoned comments lately, but cloudflare exists to profit off your data. They’re not there to help you, your data and its trends are the product.

dessalines ,

They’re a giant middleman getting everything you put into html forms unencrypted.

That includes all your usernames, passwords, and everything you submit via text boxes. Do not trust any site that uses cloudflare.

joenforcer ,

This is such a Lemmy take, good god.

“Cloudflare has been around for over a decade and doesn’t do anything nefarious with my data and have never shown any intention of doing so… but, consider this for a moment… what if they DID?”

WldFyre ,

This is such a Lemmy take

What makes it funnier is that he’s one of the main Lemmy devs lol

dessalines ,

Trusting US corporations by default rule

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/79f16cd1-a5ea-4f62-8370-a6c7740177ce.jpeg

WldFyre ,

NGL I’m struggling to follow that image, do you have a higher res version or an explanation if you don’t mind?

dessalines ,

en.wikipedia.org/…/2010s_global_surveillance_disc…

dessalines , (edited )

Cloudflare has been around for over a decade and doesn’t do anything nefarious with my data and have never shown any intention of doing so

Citation needed.

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/94341811-8998-4d25-8b4b-b01cac51a2b0.jpeg

joenforcer ,

Oops, I’ve got a citation for you.

blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-prism-secure-ciphe…

I know the response will be what you already said in a previous comment about companies saying “trust us bro” so I’ll take the L on this one.

dessalines ,

Appreciate the humility, thx.

trolololol ,

Oh yeah I’ll do a full research next time I enter a web page to see who hosts it. If it’s by Amazon or Microsoft I’ll give green light.

dessalines ,

None of the above is easily possible, a lot of us do it.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

Oh hey, thanks for Lemmy!

Yeah, I’m a bit horrified to learn that Cloudflare is the crytographic endpoint for clients. I’m wondering how much stuff I’ve let them see while unaware now.

Y’know, because obviously nobody would voluntarily sign up for this kind of security bad practice. /s

dessalines ,

No probs! Yeah it’s wild that a lot of people not only using cloudflare sites, but also running them, don’t seem to mind that cloudflare is hoovering up everything.

uis ,
  1. They seem to hate my devices. Lots of captchas.
  2. They seem to hate when people bypass their country’s censorship. Using sites behind cloudflare through tor is pain without end.
zalgotext ,

I get so many cloudflare captchas browsing on Firefox. They mostly go away when I change my user agent string to Chrome. Making the Internet more hostile for a particular group of users is pretty shitty behavior in my book.

pipe01 ,

I use Firefox and can’t remember the last time I got a cloudflare captcha

CanadaPlus ,

They’ve gotten a lot better over Tor - that’s the main thing I’m thinking of, actually. I used to give up most of the time when captcha’d, but now with the JavaScript based verification I pretty much always can get in, even on mobile.

Most providers don’t give a shit about Tor, or actively try to block it. They actually went out of their way to make it easier.

Schadrach ,

What’s the problem with CloudFlare?

So far, not much other than being “too” content neutral for a lot of people. They have potential to be immensely horrible whenever they decide to engage in enshittification to maximize profits.

refalo , (edited )

they’re called crimeflare for a reason. besides being a government goldmine having access to everyone’s encrypted TLS traffic, they selectively enforce censorship in unethical ways.

why block kiwifarms when you still allow hosting monkey torture sites? or sites for sourcing bathtub HRT secretly sent to minors? they shouldn’t be policing the internet in the first place. this is dangerously close to invalidating Section 230 protections as well.

there’s so many more reasons it’s not even funny.

CanadaPlus ,

Apparently they also strip encryption off and see everything, too.

Schadrach ,

They see everything because they have to for some of the services they offer which gives them a huge potential to do terrible things that they have not actually pursued yet to date, hence the “so far” in my comment.

CanadaPlus ,

No terrible visible things, at least. God knows how much data they’ve hoovered up.

Schadrach ,

True. But that just falls back on the “not yet” part of things. They’re likely sitting on a massively valuable pile of user data and when they get greedy enough it’s going to be ugly.

refalo ,

They are the world’s largest MITM as a service.

Sam_Bass ,

Only two buttons and you got five fingers. Math>you

KingThrillgore ,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

I’m staying out of this

HowManyNimons OP ,

So you are.

umbrella ,
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/42fcc4a6-4a87-4cdf-9441-12488bab5bf9.jpeg

drathvedro ,

Both of course, but if I had to choose, Cloudflare. Definitely Cloudflare. That company must be purged by fire and magnets. Sure, casinos are evil, but they mostly stay in their lane doing their thing of preying on the vulnerable. When Cloudflare just straight up breaks half the internet for lunch and there’s, by design, no way around it.

nova_ad_vitum ,

In this particular story, if there’s any truth to it then it’s basically extortion. They could have just said that due to their usage profile they will need to switch to an enterprise license for the next billing period . Instead they tried to extort it within 24h lol.

And of course you have to buy a whole year of service (lol). This last thing is a symptom of a degenerate market with few competitors. No company that fears competition would try to pull that stunt.

pearsaltchocolatebar ,

No, the site had 2 weeks. They decided to argue with CF until that deadline was up.

cloud_herder ,

Where does online sports “betting” fit into this meme? Genuine ask because I have no experience or awareness of online casinos. Thanks.

trashgirlfriend ,

Generally if it’s connected to gambling there’s scummy stuff going on.

Hobbes_Dent ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0ed16713-8e8e-4d9d-ba40-621e64d42fd6.jpeg

That was number 13. Online casinos.

Evotech ,

They usually go hand in hand.

MehBlah ,

Cloudflare is a business. Businesses protect their profits. Online casinos are scams subject to regular massive DDOS by their scumbag competitors and by people who want them shut down. Cloudflare wasn’t going to eat that loss anymore so they kicked them to the curb to save money. Also the time frame wasn’t 24 hours. More like a month. This makes me suspect the scamming casino’s story more.

sudneo ,

Cloudflare as a business provides DDOS protection. If they kick out those who get ddos’s, what’s their value? (Sure, WAF etc. but you get the point).

Also, as much as casinos are ethically questionable, they are also business. Very regulated businesses even (while tech is kind of a Wild West).

Evotech ,

They provide a whole lot more to begin with.

sudneo ,

Sure, which is why I said:

(Sure, WAF etc. but you get the point).

An online casino would mostly benefit from WAF, DDoS protection and caching.

The arguments I was responding to is like saying that if you get too many web attacks they should kick you because the WAF is not anymore profitable. It doesn’t make any sense.

Evotech ,

They didn’t get kicked out. Just moved to a more expensive solution / pricing structure

sudneo ,

Cloudflare wasn’t going to eat that loss anymore so they kicked them to the curb to save money.

I am arguing with the logic that claims this is reasonable, not discussing what they did.

I don’t have a problem saying that they should charge more, but it’s them who made an unlimited plan to become a monopoly charging 250/month.

Blemgo ,

And insurances provide monetary compensation until you become a common liability, too high to be covered by any sort of fee. DDOS protection is just the same. It’s only feasible if it happens rarely, like they usually happen. However if it’s a common occurrence it will just eat up the profits made by the fees and then some, which just is stupid to do in any case.

sudneo ,

It’s a completely different thing. DDoS protection is not like insurance. Insurance is putting monetary value on a risk and paying off if that risk materialises. DDoS mitigation is a set of technical measures that are implemented. Most of the DDoS protections are features which are implemented (e.g., when the traffic is more than X, require captcha for all requests). It doesn’t have any marginal cost for the provider.

And you can argue the same for the network infrastructure. Once you have the bandwidth, as long as it’s not saturated it is a waste letting it idle.

So I really don’t see how even being under DDoS every day can “eat up your fees”. Maybe you can elaborate?

pastermil ,

It is similar in that there’s a pool of resource shared between all the clients, and the service provider can shift this resource around when in need.

sudneo ,

You can make this argument for literally every business, though. Which business does not have a single pool of resources and multiple clients to consume them?

To me it seems a really arbitrary argument. Insurance companies estimate a risk, and if their chance to pay is almost certain, then for them there is no point in insuring you, they lose for sure so they refuse you.

DDoS protection services don’t pay if their customers get DDoS. Cloudflare doesn’t need to go and deploy more network appliances every time a customer gets DDoS’d, nor they need to hire additional engineers to implement features. They have done this already and if they do it’s a company-wide investment, not a per-client investment.

Honytawk ,

You can make this argument for literally every business, though. Which business does not have a single pool of resources and multiple clients to consume them?

The majority of factories. They get an order in and produce the product until that order is fulfilled. They don’t have to be running 24/7, it is just that that is the most profitable.

But if you stick to your “analogy”, a factory also chooses who their customers are. And if some are too demanding, they just drop them. Like the casinos.

sudneo ,

OK, sorry. Digital services businesses.

Also, once factories have machines etc., they might prioritize one customer over another, but I doubt they decide a customer is not profitable. In fact, digital businesses don’t have by design the problems posed by the physical world, and this is especially true in b2c businesses…

Blemgo ,

I should have elaborated on it a bit more, my bad.

While it’s true that DDoS is more of an active technology rather than a CYA thing. It does however also act as insurance when it comes to the “blame game”: if your site goes down it’s not your fault but the provider’s fault, meaning you might be able to recoup lost profits through a lawsuit.

Of course the only way to avoid this for the provider is to provide better and stronger systems, which normally would grow homogenous through more customers and/or growing fees for all customers, which would pay for better capacity and stronger protection by itself.

However here we have a client that is a high value target that others might want to take down at all costs. Even if they didn’t sue, a strong enough attack might, alongside naturally expected DDoS on other clients, not only take down this customer’s server, but others as well, which really isn’t something you want, for the reasons stated above. And rapidly increasing security could be not worth it, as it could devolve into an arms race by proxy with a high risk of the customer leaving if you raise their fees to much, leaving you with a system which’s maintenance will now dig into your profits due to a lost big income stream, or make other customers leave if you raise the general fee.

sudneo ,

To be honest, I have never even heard of anybody who sued a service provider for failing to mitigate DDoS, or for letting an attack through a WAF, etc. I am quite positive that the contracts/T&C you sign when you subscribe to the services are rock solid, otherwise cloudflare would be under extreme liability. Also, usually you have the ability to customize the DDoS settings, choose thresholds etc. I really can’t imagine a company having any real chance of getting the provider to reimburse you. The only service that usually has SLA is the uptime of the CDN, which if breached should be compensated. I am quite sure that in the cheap plans the SLA is probably not very high.

Also, what you say about a customer that someone might want to take down is true for all customers that require DDoS protection. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t pay for the service on the first place. Cloudflare serves a bazillion customers who are much bigger targets than a casino, I don’t think they were afraid of the exposure. Also, when cloudflare receives a high DDoS attack, for them is awesome marketing. Imperva, Akamai, Cloudflare are basically identical and the selling point is exactly “how big can they tolerate?”.

Honestly rather than speculating on what we don’t know, I propose a simpler option: cloudflare plans are designed to get customers one foot in the door with a super cheap plan, to them each individual customer has basically no marginal cost. However, once the customers are in they can identify the ones they can squueze and find reasons to push more expensive plans. If they bump 1/30 of them, even if they other 29 will leave, they are in plus (250x29 < 10000 x 1).

To me this seems simply a business strategy. They specifically say “Unlimited & unmetered DDoS attack mitigation” in the cheapest plan, afterall.

azertyfun ,

Comparing Cloudflare to insurance companies is not how you’ll convince me they’re not acting like jerks lol

Blemgo ,

I don’t want TP convince anyone they are not like jerks, but rather highlight why a corporation would do something like this to a (most likely) lucrative client.

jaybone ,

I think they are only “very regulated” if they are based in certain western countries?

I used to hear a bunch of stories about issues getting payouts.

sudneo ,

It doesn’t matter where you are based (as a company, if this is what you meant), it matters where you operate, and lots of countries are regulated (not only Western - which in many cases are not, incl. many US states). There are basically three types of markets: regulated, gray (not regulated, not forbidden) and black (forbidden). Different companies operate in different markets, depending on their strategy (and level of shadiness). Payment processing (deposits & payouts) is done using external providers (as many as possible to serve different countries), and there are quite a lot of regulations regarding money laundering, politically exposed people and so on that they have to comply with, both for gambling regulations and international laws (e.g., European laws are quite strict when it comes to AML).

Obviously you may have customers from a regulated country without “operating” there, which means advertising, offering the site in their language, etc. But, when you withdraw money identity verification is necessary, and companies can be fined (or worse) if they willingly retain customers from regulated markets without the local license.

So yeah, there are companies that do shady stuff, but mostly it depends on country regulations. The company I worked for targeted Nordic Europe (mix of gray and regulated markets) and South America (mostly gray markets, on the way to be regulated), for example. Usually gaming authorities are quite keen in collecting their taxes, so they tend to be quite active in pursuing those who violate their regulations (like if you decide to operate where you can’t).

GoodEye8 ,

Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.

Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.

sudneo ,

The entire tech aspect of online casinos is regulated, from procedure to register customers, to bonuses, to segmentation, to popups that you need to show during game, to responsible gaming features, to security controls in the infrastructure, to reporting etc. I worked for one and I took care of the compliance to licenses. Nothing is perfect, of course, but you are under tight scrutiny, especially when you start accumulating licenses.

I don’t think casinos will throw out anybody ATM, they mostly work on quantity of users, they don’t care of few individuals who win (in fact they are good business - they will most likely play again in the future). Actions are taken against specific segments of users that are deemed high risk (e.g. suspected sure-betters, syndicates etc.). There is no need to throw them out, usually limits are applied.

For cloudflare, still nobody explained to me how using features and bandwidth already available costed anything more for Cloudflare.

kalleboo ,

It’s not that they got DDoSed, it’s that unregulated off-shore gambling is illegal in many countries, so their IP addresses were getting blocked in these countries. The way CDNs like CloudFlare work is that many customers share the IP addresses, so they were getting other CloudFlare customers blocked as well.

CF wanted them to move to a “bring your own IP” plan so that their IP blocks wouldn’t affect other customers, and that came with the steep price tag.

sudneo ,

That’s not what OC mentioned, which is what I was answering to. They mentioned the logic that getting DDoS made them unprofitable customers, I questioned it.

I perfectly understand the issue. If cloudflare was getting their IP blocked in countries where the casino was dodging regulations, they should have simply written that, and forced the customer to block traffic from those countries. The BYOIP is not the only way to solve it. Imperva forced the website i worked for to block Russia (which was not a market we were operating in) to prevent their IPs being blocked in Russia, for example. They didn’t bring it up as an option somehow, and that gives to this an extortion vibe.

alcoholicorn , (edited )

That wasn’t it, Cloudflare didn’t like the way the casino was using Cloudflare’s IPs, since they were getting banned in multiple countries.

Cloudflare only offers byoIP as part of a business package, and that comes with extortionate pricing.

drmoose ,

Cloudflare is a business. Businesses protect their profits

You say that like it’s ok to do shitty things as long as “you’re a business protecting profits”

SuddenDownpour ,

The purpose of the comment is clearly: “Cloudfare didn’t kick out the casinos because of a compromise with good ethics, but because it was making them lose money”. Please read it again.

drmoose ,

I was just having issues with your opener which sounds whole lot like justification.

SuddenDownpour ,

I’m not the person you were replying to, either.

MehBlah ,

I say that like its the way things are.

qwerty ,

Why are online casinos bad? I don’t understand this pervasive need some people have to force their way of life on others and take away their agency over their own lives. It comes off to me as some kind of superiority complex. “They’re too stupid to make their own decisions, I know better what’s best for them, I must protect them from themselves”.

PoliticalAgitator ,

Sounds more like you just don’t know anything about the gambling industry. They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

Nevertheless, nobody here is “forcing their way of life on others and taking away their agency over their own lives”. They’re just acknowledging that casinos have a long history of being absolute cunts.

qwerty ,

Who’s “they”? I don’t know much about the gambling industry but if it’s anything like any other industry then it’s not a centralized monolith but many independent business. As long as the founding principles aren’t inherently corrupt (and in the case of casinos they aren’t. Nobody is forced to play and everyone knows the house has an advantage and in the long term is guaranteed to win. Because of this it doesn’t make sense for the house to cheat and risk getting caught, it will win anyway.) there is no reason to think that the majority of the industry engages in criminal activity. This is a massive generalization.

PoliticalAgitator ,

I don’t know much about the gambling industry

You can stop there. You don’t know much about the gambling industry, defending them was just an opportunity to tell us your opinions on “some people”, none of whom are actually here.

qwerty ,

Yes, my comment wasn’t about online casinos but about the people who think they have a right to tell others how to live their lives. I’m not defending the gambling industry, I think gambling is stupid. I’m defending the right of the people to make their own decisions.

My “defense of the gambling industry” was just me pointing out that as long as something isn’t inherently nonconsensual and the terms and conditions are clear there is no reason to forbid other people from doing it just because you disagree with it.

PoliticalAgitator ,

Nobody in this thread has forbidden anyone from doing anything. If you want a soapbox for your irrelevant opinions, start a blog.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

Yes, my comment wasn’t about online casinos but about the people who think they have a right to tell others how to live their lives.

Who’s “they the people”? I don’t know much about the gambling industry the internet but if it’s anything like any other industry place then it’s not a centralized monolith but many independent business people.

sudneo ,

They run rigged games in predatory ways.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Games have a fixed margin which is usually disclosed or can be computed (exactly like the 0 and 00 in the roulette skews the odds in the house’s favor if you want to do just black/red). There are then whole chapters in national regulations about random number generators to ensure the odds are correct and the games are not rigged (i.e., a game certified for 98% should have that outcome). Are games designed to have the house win a 2,5,7,9% margin? Sure, but this is out there in the open, there is nothing to “rig” in the same way having 0 or 00 is not “rigging” a game of roulette.

They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut.

At least in Europe, you get audited quite often and AML regulations are very tight. Laundering money via online gambling companies with their cooperation seems quite unlikely to me (and inefficient, possibly, but I don’t know).

They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

Some do, but not all, and not in all cases. Addicts are bad for business for gambling companies, or at least for some of them, moderate long-term customers are generally better (and require way less effort).

I don’t know what you know about gambling, I definitely think that the ethics are questionable, and I left the industry when I could also for those reasons, but the company I worked for was not very bad in this regards. Maybe you worked/had experience with some of the shady ones (like those who operate in illegal markets using a single license from a random tiny country)?

Makhno ,

“They’re too stupid to make their own decisions, I know better what’s best for them, I must protect them from themselves”.

I’ve never been given a reason to not think most people are morons

qwerty ,

I presume you don’t consider yourself to be a part of the aforementioned majority? Do you believe it makes you superior? Do you believe you know better what’s best for them? Do you believe you must protect them from themselves, even at the cost of their self-determination?

zea_64 ,

I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I am stupid enough to occasionally get close to falling for a scam. Rather than test my luck, I’d rather they didn’t exist.

ji17br ,

Allowing someone to play a game in which the rules and odds are clear and up front, is not a scam. Full stop.

zea_64 ,

True, but we’re not talking about clear and up front rules

1984 ,
@1984@lemmy.today avatar

You haven’t met most people. :)

NoIWontPickAName ,

The problem is every one of us is most people on something. ;P

bobburger ,

That's 100% true. That's why I'd like the help from experts to help me avoid being scammed, help me avoid drinking and eating poisoned food, or having to breath unhealthy air.

I don't always know the full repercussions from the decisions I make so I really appreciate having some expert help. This is especially true of decisions shitty people try to coerce me into making when I'm desperate or emotionally vulnerable.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Why are online casinos bad?

How can players be sure they are honest?

I must protect them from themselves.

People should be protected from scammers with fake (always lose) casinos.

qwerty ,

There are ways to cryptographically verify bet integrity, but that’s not important. The point I was trying to make is that people should have the right to make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them, even if they’re objectively wrong.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

If you are objecting about one person’s morals being forced on another then I totally agree.

Your delivery of that argument needs work because it comes across as wanting to defend scammers.

ji17br ,

At no point was he defending scammers. This is insane.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Playing innocent and asking why online casinos are bad.

ji17br ,

Yes. He’s asking a question? Why is an online casino bad?

If the casino follows all rules and regulations, then that is not bad.

If talking about sites that steal your money and don’t pay out when you “win”, then yes, that is bad, and a scam. But that’s not an online casino…that’s a scam. And also incredibly rare.

An online casino can make a shit ton of money by just following the rules. Why would they need to break the rules?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

But that’s not an online casino…that’s a scam.

Excellent. You understand the point.

ji17br ,

Excellent. You have no idea what you’re talking about :)

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

youtu.be/j95kNwZw8YY

ji17br ,

Gotta upvote the dude

sudneo ,

How can players be sure they are honest?

At the bottom of each gambling sites usually there are the banners for the license(s) the company holds. Complying with licenses (e.g., Maltese) ensures that the due paperwork (i.e., proving that Casino games are functioning according to their certification) is taken care of. So yes, national gambling authorities usually are the ones who protect people from scammers.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

“functioning according to their certification” doesn’t prove to me that they aren’t shaving the odds or injecting sneaky code into the process. I have to trust in the technical ability of the regulators.

Also, I could write “regulated by the Maltese” on the bottom of any website, it doesn’t make it true.

sudneo ,

They can’t add sneaky code to the process (without getting caught). For sensitive game code every single change needs to be tracked and reviewed by the authority. You get audited at least once a year, and then all the changes are reviewed. Authorities outsource the job for the technical reviews to specialized companies.

Also, what’s the point? The games already provide a margin to the host, why risking to go out of business for such an irrelevant gain (a few more %)? Add to this that usually casino games writers do just that, write games and sell those to N casinos. So the incentive for the casino games writers are even smaller.

Finally, yes you can write “license X”, but you can cross-check that information from the regulator itself, you don’t need to trust just the line on the site. The point is you as a customer can choose a trustworthy site, ideally one who is licensed in countries where regulations are quite tight (in Europe I would say Denmark), before putting your money somewhere.

At some point you need to trust “someone”, that’s how the whole world works. The gambling authorities are no different than the authorities that enforce the safety certifications for electrict equipment, or cars, or whatever.

If your concern is that you would lose money on casino games because the site rigged it, it’s a relatively silly concern. You will lose because the casino games are designed to make you lose in the long term, on average.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

They can’t add sneaky code to the process (without getting caught).

That means that people have to check

For sensitive game code every single change needs to be tracked and reviewed by the authority. You get audited at least once a year, and then all the changes are reviewed. Authorities outsource the job for the technical reviews to specialized companies.

Or just ignore that and publish whatever you like.

why risking to go out of business for such an irrelevant gain

Why spend money to meet regulations?

Finally, yes you can write “license X”, but you can cross-check that information from the regulator itself, you don’t need to trust just the line on the site.

How many users actually do this? A very low percentage.

point is you as a customer can choose a trustworthy site,

The point is that many don’t.

If your concern is that you would lose money on casino games because the site rigged it, it’s a relatively silly concern.

Not really. It’s one of the reasons why online casinos can be bad.

The question was what is “wrong with online casinos”. So I gave an example. Others include money laundering, exploitation of addiction, exploitation of stupidity, waste of resources, tax evasion etc .

sudneo ,

Have you ever made a single transaction online paying with your credit or debit card? How do you know the site didn’t steal or misuse your information?

The answer is that storing, transmitting or processing card data requires you to be PCI-DSS compliant, which is a very strict standard. If you get caught violating that you are out of business and fined in the abyss, which is a much bigger risk than stealing john doe’s pennies.

Sorry but from what you are saying it seems you simply don’t understand how compliance works.

That means that people have to check

And that is why you have at least annual audits (for each license, plus AML, plus other stuff), and why you need to present the whole chain of changes that happened to sensitive code.

Why spend money to meet regulations?

Because if you get caught not doing that you lose access to whole markets at once and get fined. There is no economic incentive as complying doesn’t cost nearly as much. Specifically, I told you that casino game makers are generally not casinos, they are software houses. So they can’t care less about rigging the games, their revenue comes from companies paying for using their games. Casinos also don’t care of rigging games because games are designed to leave them a certain margin anyway, so why doing it?

The point is that many don’t.

And that’s why national regulations are generally a safe umbrella. If you see a website (through advertisements) that means that website is allowed locally and already met the national regulations.

If you are in a non regulated country then you will need to do a tiny bit of research. You are putting money on a site, after all (you should do the same for everything you do online).

The question was what is “wrong with online casinos”. So I gave an example. Others include money laundering, exploitation of addiction, exploitation of stupidity, waste of resources, tax evasion etc

Yes, you gave examples based on your own speculations. It’s clear you have no idea how the industry works. Money laundering is something international law covers and is extremely tightly controlled, tax evasion is also completely insane for online businesses, because every transaction has a trail and there are tight regulations about what you need to report for every country where you operate. Exploitation of stupidity, sure. Some also exploit addiction, regulations exist for that too, and for some businesses addicts are terrible customers.

Question: what exactly is your experience with the gambling business?

Because to me it seems you are making stuff up or basing your statements on movies about gambling and oeganised crime, while the reality is much simpler: companies get money simply by having active users on their sites. Quantity is the name of the game.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

How do you know the site didn’t steal or misuse your information?

Exactly. Scam websites can be casinos or shops or anything.

You are vehemently defending the “legitimate” casino industry whereas I am saying it’s easy to create scam casinos.

Yes, you gave examples based on your own speculations. It’s clear you have no idea how the industry works.

I know well how it works.

Money laundering is something international law covers and is extremely tightly controlled, tax evasion is also completely insane for online businesses, because every transaction has a trail and there are tight regulations about what you need to report for every country where you operate.

Casinos, on and offline, are excellent ways to launder. The amount of regulations trying to mitigate this risk proves my point.

Exploitation of stupidity, sure.

Glad we agree here.

Some also exploit addiction, regulations exist for that too, and for some businesses addicts are terrible customers.

Not for casinos. Gambling addiction is a casino’s main business. Why are there no windows in Vegas?

Question: what exactly is your experience with the gambling business?

Betfair, betfred, bet356, Ladbrokes etc.

Exchanges for sports and real life events I have little problem with.

I only have probems with sites that scam people with flashing lights and random number generators.

Quantity is the name of the game.

Yes. Online you can scam many more people with fake roulette tables.

sudneo ,

Exactly. Scam websites can be casinos or shops or anything.

Ok, you understand that this is a completely different set of businesses compared to established casino business, right?

Talking about scam website to infer things about the “real” counterparts doesn’t make much sense. Yes, there is scam-everything. Doesn’t mean “shops are scam”, because there are shops which scam people. So when I talk about online casinos, I refer to the legitimate businesses that are gambling businesses, not scam organizations that happen to use gambling as their cover.

In any case, licenses are a very effective way to protect yourself from scammers.

Casinos, on and offline, are excellent ways to launder. The amount of regulations trying to mitigate this risk proves my point.

As all systems that allow to move money, they are excellent vectors, but doesn’t mean they are excellent ways to launder money. Regulations prevent money laundering (or strongly mitigating), which makes them less and less viable for laundering. I specifically talk about online casinos, since cash is not an option.

Not for casinos. Gambling addiction is a casino’s main business. Why are there no windows in Vegas?

Online and physical casinos are different and they comply with different regulations. In online casinos for example it might be mandatory to limit session duration, show popups every X minutes to inform about losses and duration of the session etc., depending on licenses. These are just responsible gaming measures enforced by licenses (in this case the Maltese, which is a very common one), which do not apply to physical casinos.

Yes. Online you can scam many more people with fake roulette tables.

So, this is the crux of the problem: your definition of scamming seems to be variable. There are only two options:

  • The casino game works according to specifics
  • The casino game is rigged, meaning it provides better odds to the host compared to its specifics

Both of them provide revenue for the host, with the second being marginally higher (you can’t have 80% margin, people won’t play). The second though has the problem that it won’t pass certification, so the only way to serve it is on unlicensed sites. Being unlicensed makes it impossible to access whole markets. So, why companies should go for the second and not the first, when even the first is providing money and a bigger pool of players?

To support your claim, maybe you can list a bunch of articles about casinos getting caught with rigged games that were licensed? I did a quick search and nothing popped up immediately (although they might exist, and it’s a good thing they got caught, which shows controls work).

Betfair, betfred, bet356, Ladbrokes etc.

As a user? Because that doesn’t tell much. Anyway, bet365 has a casino, do you trust it?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Ok, you understand that this is a completely different set of businesses compared to established casino business, right?

From the user perspective they are the same. A scam casino is much easier to create than a scam Nike shop.

licenses are a very effective way to protect yourself from scammers

Not if the licence is fake.

it might be mandatory to limit session duration, show popups every X minutes to inform about losses and duration of the session etc

“Might be mandatory” means that it might not be, and for certain casino operators don’t want it.

your definition of scamming seems to be variable.

Yes. There is the objective “designed to steal” scamming and my subjective dislike of betting against a dressed up random number generator.

bet365 has a casino, do you trust it?

No. But that is my subjective dislike.

maybe you can list a bunch of articles about casinos getting caught with rigged games

Lots of anecdotes along the lines of

“online slots usually let you go up a bit and are relatively generous for the first 20-30 minutes of play, then the odds drop drastically when the algorithms realize you’re hooked/chasing the dragon”

smithfieldtimes.com/…/6-common-casino-scams-to-av…

morganfinancialrecovery.com/…/online-casino-scams…

legitgamblingsites.com/…/online-casino-scams-be-a…

“What I mean by this is my friend is a new bettor, we sit side by side watching the same games at the same time, and the odds are much worse for me. It will show -100000 on my screen and shows -8000 on my friends screen”

All betting sites have blacklists of customers taking advantage of arbitrage between sites.

Here are some common online betting scams copied from quora.

Fake Betting Sites: Scammers create fake betting websites that appear legitimate but are designed to steal your personal and financial information. Always ensure you’re using reputable and licensed betting sites.

Phishing: Scammers send fraudulent emails or messages claiming to be from legitimate betting sites, asking for your login details, password, or payment information. Never share sensitive information through email or messages.

Too Good to Be True Offers: Scammers may promise guaranteed wins or insider information for a fee. They might also offer bonuses that seem too good to be true. These offers are often designed to take your money without delivering results.

Tipster Scams: Some scammers pose as expert tipsters or handicappers, offering betting tips or predictions for a fee. They may manipulate their records to show past success, but their actual tips might not yield positive results.

Unregulated Casinos: Betting on unregulated or unlicensed casinos can put your money and personal information at risk. Always choose licensed and regulated casinos and sportsbooks.

Rigged Games: In some cases, illegitimate gambling sites may manipulate game outcomes to ensure players lose. Stick to reputable sites that use random number generators and undergo regular audits.

Payment Scams: Scammers may ask for upfront payment to access their “winning system” or betting tips. Legitimate services do not require upfront payments for access to tips.

Match-Fixing Scams: Some scammers claim to have inside information about match-fixing or rigged games and offer to sell this information. This is often a ploy to steal your money.

Identity Theft: Scammers might impersonate betting sites to collect personal information for identity theft. Always ensure you’re on a secure and legitimate site.

Unfair Terms and Conditions: Some betting sites have complex or unfair terms and conditions that make it difficult to withdraw winnings or bonuses. Always read the terms before betting.

sudneo ,

From the user perspective they are the same. A scam casino is much easier to create than a scam Nike shop.

it’s not. Creating a game is much more complex than putting a bunch of images and text on a web page. Also in order to play casino games you need to deposit money, so you need to also develop that part, a scan shop can simply spoof the payment window and steal the card directly…

Not if the licence is fake.

If you got to know about the casino, chances are it’s a legitimate business. It doesn’t take a PhD also to just double check the website. If you are looking for casinos online digging in the internet, rather than surfing the most prominent businesses, then yes. If you just pick the mainstream ones, you are covered. The chance you lose because the game is rigged is negligible. Also, you are putting money somewhere, you should make some basic checks (it’s enough a 10 second search for the license ID and check your regulator website).

“Might be mandatory” means that it might not be, and for certain casino operators don’t want it.

No, it means that it depends on licenses. Different licenses require different things. If you hold the Maltese license, you need to have it, period. Maybe there are licenses that don’t prescribe that particular thing, hence “might be”.

Yes. There is the objective “designed to steal” scamming and my subjective dislike of betting against a dressed up random number generator.

Games have to be random number generators lol. There is nothing to dress up, that’s exactly what playing casino games is like. It’s a RNG where you have the 50%-the margin chance to win. This has nothing to do with scamming, or rigging games, which was your initial argument.

Lots of anecdotes along the lines of

Ok… lol

“What I mean by this is my friend is a new bettor, we sit side by side watching the same games at the same time, and the odds are much worse for me. It will show -100000 on my screen and shows -8000 on my friends screen”

Absolutely the bookie will know the customers and might apply different limits and different odds. If you are suspected being a part of a syndicate, for example, you will get worse odds. This is not a scam, you see exactly what the odds are, it is not hidden from you. This applies to sportsbook, not casino.

All betting sites have blacklists of customers taking advantage of arbitrage between sites.

This has nothing to do with casino or scamming. Also, sure betters are generally not blacklisted, they simply get limits applied as anyway to make any kind of money you need high volumes. Again, what does this have to do with rigging games? You can’t “rig” sportsbook, when you bet you see clearly what the odds are and you can compare and choose another provider with better odds.

Here are some common online betting scams copied from quora.

Wow, very useful dump. Have you read the “rigged games” part?

Rigged Games: In some cases, illegitimate gambling sites may manipulate game outcomes to ensure players lose. Stick to reputable sites that use random number generators and undergo regular audits.

Note that 7/10 items in that list are simply scams by individuals targeting other individuals and have nothing to do with casinos. The only relevant ones are:

  • Unregulated Casinos
  • Rigged Games
  • Unfair Terms and Conditions

The solution for the first 2 is to use licensed providers. The last one is absolutely true, usually in bigger or established businesses, but has nothing to do with rigging games.

Basically nothing of this info dump from Quora (for what is worth) corroborates your argument…

To be honest, is it so hard to admit that you simply don’t like gambling because it’s taking money from people who don’t know better? I agree with that myself, and it’s a sufficient criticism to dislike casinos. There is no need to make up totally false information to add arguments.

No, mainstream, reputable and licensed casinos will not rig games and steal money from you. Yes, they will take money from you in the majority of cases because games - all of them - are designed to benefit the house. No, they don’t help laundering money because in most cases they will get caught and lose the whole business, it’s very, very, very hard to hide activity when you have multiple regulators plus the usual government agencies look at your reports constantly, and all your transactions are tracked.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Creating a game is much more complex than putting a bunch of images and text on a web page.

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

Also in order to play casino games you need to deposit money, so you need to also develop that part, a scan shop can simply spoof the payment window and steal the card directly…

You don’t get as much money that way. Better to encourage larger deposits and “crash” when large withdrawals are requested.

If you got to know about the casino, chances are it’s a legitimate business.

Not necessarily. Popups and emails exist. Especially interesting if they offer free spins.

This has nothing to do with scamming, or rigging games, which was your initial argument.

The original question was “what is wrong with online casinos”. One answer I gave was scammers, then you pressed me for more.

Note that 7/10 items in that list are simply scams by individuals targeting other individuals and have nothing to do with casinos.

DUDE. This is the point. You can’t argue that online casinos are fine so long as you ignore all the bad casinos and scammers.

Unfair Terms and Conditions […] is absolutely true, usually in bigger or established businesses, but has nothing to do with rigging games.

Fuck me. You admit online casinos are unfair then immediately dismiss this as unimportant. Now I suspect I’m arguing against a paid troll.

sudneo ,

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

Sure.

EDIT: I don’t even dignify with an answer “hack small parts of the codebase”. I can clearly see you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about.

You don’t get as much money that way. Better to encourage larger deposits and “crash” when large withdrawals are requested.

Then this is not a rigged game. Again, you said that games are rigged to scam people…

Not necessarily. Popups and emails exist. Especially interesting if they offer free spins.

True, and that’s if the site find you, rather than viceversa. No different than phishing…

The original question was “what is wrong with online casinos”. One answer I gave was scammers, then you pressed me for more.

Your original answer was specific: rigged games and money laundering. None of which is generally true.

DUDE. This is the point. You can’t argue that online casinos are fine so long as you ignore all the bad casinos and scammers.

I already clarified what I consider an “online casino”. it’s irrelevant what a scam website is, it doesn’t say anything about the industry it tries to imitate…

Fuck me. You admit online casinos are unfair then immediately dismiss this as unimportant. Now I suspect I’m arguing against a paid troll.

Don’t move the goalpost. Some casinos use complicate T&C, this has nothing to do with rigging games.

Again, the fact that your arguments are hairdresser gossip doesn’t make me a paid troll. I know the industry and I can use facts to criticize it, which I do (I left it for a reason). You make stuff up and keep changing your argument…

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

I don’t even dignify with an answer

Rigged games is the only point you want to address, then you fail to do so when given the opportunity.

legitgamblingsites.com/…/online-casino-scams-be-a…

Casino Scam Two: Rigged Games This casino gaming scam is fairly simple. They run rigged games which let you win for a while, but ultimately rinse you of every penny. This one doesn’t require 4D chess or deviousness fit for a Bond villain, just good old-fashioned rigged software.

The scam casino software companies which create rigged games are fairly well-known by most people who play regularly online or work in the online betting industry. Respected casinos don’t work with them, and respected casino software companies don’t usually work with casinos that do. That’s an important thing to note, because it is the first step to avoiding rigged games. If you see Microgaming, Playtech, NetEnt, or other powerhouse casino software companies in the mix, it’s highly likely that you’re dealing with a legitimate online casino.

However, scam casino operators have gotten wise to this, and as a result, they run pirated versions of otherwise legit games. They’re much more difficult to spot for the untrained eye, because they are clones of the original games with a tweaked code to cheat you.

sudneo ,

Dude, you are changing the argument again, as usual.

I got it. Yes, scam website exist. Yes, scan shop websites exist, as exist phishing banking sites, and a universe of things.

You said:

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

This is complete bullshit.

Pirating a game only means copying the look of a legitimate game served on “real” casinos. There is nothing to hack, because you don’t have the codebase. Netent, playtech, evolution, microgaming, they all serve their games via iframes or similar, they integrate with you via API, they whitelist your IPs or authenticate yourself with a token. Scam casinos might simply look at real games and imitate them, exactly like you might do a fake shop and copy - say - Amazon’s look.

And for the 100th times, this is a negligible problem if you are playing on licensed websites, which in turn used licensed gaming providers.

You are conflating arguments that apply to scam website as if these apply to the wider industry, they don’t! If you are talking about banking, you wouldn’t say “banks steal your data”, because there are scammers that use bank websites to phish people. They are a completely different thing. So, as clear as it can be:

  • Some scammers might use casinos to scam people. They might spin up fake casino sites (UNLICENSED, of faking a license at most) where games are rigged. These casinos generally can’t advertise anywhere and they are luring people the same way phishing sites lure them in: Spam emails etc.
  • Rigged games are generally not a problem within the casino industry, as it’s not money laundering. Regulations apply to the vast majority of established businesses which prevent both quite effectively. This is why before putting money in a website you should spend 10 seconds and check that the website has a valid license (from your national authority). Once you have done this, you can stay with that website and be 99.9% sure that games are not rigged (i.e., they use RNG). You will still lose in the long run, but not because they are rigged.

I can’t be clearer than this.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

That’s why scammers usually just pirate and hack small parts of the codebase.

This is complete bullshit.

I linked to an external source showing it is not bullshit.

Your arguments for online casinos not being scams are based solely on excluding scams from your definition of online casinos.

sudneo ,

Your source didn’t confirm in any way what you said. Making lookalikes have nothing to do with “hacking small parts of the codebase”.

Also the source itself is a random website lol

My argument is that casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games. A scam site is no more a casino than a phishing site is a banking site. Do you think banking sites are scams?

Your initial statement was a blanket statement about casinos “rigging games” and “helping laundering money for a cut”. Now you are defending the hill that some scammers use casinos as their vector for scams, which is a completely different thing, that nobody questioned also. It simply has nothing to do with " casinos".

But I see you are one of those people who are clinically incapable of admitting you said something incorrect, even after you said tons of incorrect stuff and you showed to have a very superficial understanding of the gambling industry (my favorite was when you called games "dressed up RNGs, when they are required to be RNG by law, and you really want them to be…).

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

My argument is that casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.

And this opinion is incorrect. I would accept that some online casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.

A scam site is no more a casino than a phishing site is a banking site.

Incorrect. I’ve posted multiple examples of online casino scams, including rigging the games.

Do you think banking sites are scams?

Some are.

Now you are defending the hill that some scammers use casinos as their vector for scams, which is a completely different thing, that nobody questioned also.

Look at the top of this thread. The question was “Why are online casinos bad”.

sudneo ,

And this opinion is incorrect. I would accept that some online casinos don’t need to scam by rigging games.

No, it’s not. I discussed and explained already to you that there are several reasons:

  • Game makers don’t usually have casinos. Their revenues come from other casinos, who in turn don’t have access to the code.
  • Games are already designed to have a margin for the host.
  • Rigging games is illegal and would make a casino lose their license. This is a much bigger financial risk than skimming 2-3% more of margin on games.

You instead provided 0 explanation about what you are claiming.

Incorrect. I’ve posted multiple examples of online casino scams, including rigging the games.

You didn’t post any example. You posted statements that mentioned that some website can spoof casinos with rigged games. Those are not casino websites, they hold no licenses and they are not established businesses. They are not part of an industry, exactly like scam banking website are not part of the financial industry.

Some are.

False, again. They are not banking sites lol. No bank would phish their users. There are scammers who impersonate banks, exactly like they impersonate casinos. Your whole argument relies on calling scammers that do X part of the X industry. They are not.

Look at the top of this thread. The question was “Why are online casinos bad”.

And your answer in fact is completely incorrect. Rather than admitting that you have 0 proof or arguments that casinos rig games and enable laundering money, you are now relying purely on a definition of casinos that include the casino scam sites.

I will repeat, your argument is exactly as absurd as the following:

Why are online casinos banks bad?

Sounds more like you just don’t know anything about the gambling financial industry. They run rigged games steal your credit card details in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut steal people identities.

Then, when confronted about this, you would provide getcomputeractive.co.uk/…/fake-bank-website-URLs which says:

Hackers have set up fake URLs for UK banks, using website names that sound genuine in order to trick people into handing over their personal information and log-in details.

thinking it is proof. It’s not.

As I said, you clearly have no idea about the industry, you said so many things that show it and then glanced over them to avoid embarrassment, and you ended up moving the goalpost so far, that now your entire stance relies on the fact that scam casino websites are online casinos. The initial question “why are online casinos bad” clearly referred to businesses which…run online casinos. And 100% your initial answer referred to that too, but once you couldn’t support your argument in any way, you retreated purely onto the scam websites that impersonate casinos.

Is it so hard for you to admit that you made a big statement about something you are not fully knowledgeable?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

You instead provided 0 explanation about what you are claiming.

See links above why scamming and online casinos are linked.

They are not banking sites lol

You are not approaching this from a user perspective

If it looks like a banking site, then it is banking site.

If it looks like an online casino then they are an online casino.

The initial question “why are online casinos bad” clearly referred to businesses which…run online casinos

Incorrect.

sudneo ,

Ok, I see you are now fully entrenched on your position, with absolutely no ability to defend it. You are hanging onto that random site that says that yes - fake casinos exist, for your dear life.

You are not approaching this from a user perspective

ahahaha, yes, a scammer creating a fake banking site from a scammed person perspective is doing a banking site. But here we are discussing about banks (or casinos) so you realize this argument is completely irrelevant, right?

If it looks like a banking site, then it is banking site.

Finally we reached the core flaw in your argument! If we are talking about banking sites, and - say - we discuss the security measures needed on them, nobody would think to include phishing sites into the discussion, because it’s meaningless. The question you answered to was about online casinos, and was obviously referring to the businesses which run online casinos, not “any site which looks as an online casinos from an aesthetic point of view”, because this is a completely dumb way to characterize stuff. There is a scam in which someone “sells” a box for something (say, a camera), and then you open it and there is a rock. Your argument is basically like saying “cameras suck, some don’t even do pictures”, because you consider those rocks cameras, since they were in camera boxes and sold as such.

I am 99% sure you actually don’t believe your own argument, and you are just doubling and tripling down on it because admitting to be wrong on the internet is basically impossible.

Incorrect

Oh yeah?

Why are online casinos bad? I don’t understand this pervasive need some people have to force their way of life on others and take away their agency over their own lives. It comes off to me as some kind of superiority complex. “They’re too stupid to make their own decisions, I know better what’s best for them, I must protect them from themselves”.

OP was clearly talking about actual gambling businesses. They were trying to ask an opinion about why people consider gambling bad, in relation to the agency of people to play (or not play) on them.

Now you are trying to bullshit your way through, pretending that your answer was related to scam websites, and not actual casinos. Let’s remember your first answer:

**Sounds more like you just don’t know anything about the gambling industry. **They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

You specifically talk about the gambling industry. Once again, if you really want to base your whole argument on the fact that scam websites belong to the industry they spoof, then feel free to embarrass yourself. It’s clear to anybody what you meant in your first comment, but you couldn’t defend it (because it’s bullshit), and now you are trying to get away with a rhetorical argument that is even worse. Really dude, we all said shit on the internet, admit you just said some stereotypical bullcrap and move on with your life :)

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

If we are talking about banking sites, and - say - we discuss the security measures needed on them, nobody would think to include phishing sites into the discussion, because it’s meaningless.

Incorrect. Learn to recognize ‘spoofing’ and ‘phishing’

was obviously referring to the businesses which run online casinos

Incorrect

OP was clearly talking about actual gambling businesses.

Incorrect. OP clearly wrote “online casinos”.

You clearly have a guilty conscious about the money you earned from gamblers. Or you are being paid for this shilling.

The problem with online casinos is that they are associated with a huge number of scams.

sudneo ,

Incorrect. Learn to recognize ‘spoofing’ and ‘phishing’

Jesus… Let me spell it out even more clearly: if someone is creating a new standard for banking sites, they don’t expect those goddamn measures to apply to phishing websites, because they are not considered part of the industry. Nobody discussing the banking industry would consider phishing sites PART OF it. it’s relevant to discussing phishin FOR the industry, but it’s not a problem OF banking sites. Because “banking site” means inherently a legitimate banking site.

Incorrect. OP clearly wrote “online casinos”.

And online casinos don’t include fake online casinos.

But ok, let’s clarify once and for all.

Let’s pretend you actually believe your bs, and let’s make a distinction:

  • Online casinos = established businesses in the casino industry, operating with at least a license.
  • Fake casinos = scam websites that operate without a license and which spoof an online casino with the purpose of scamming users (in whatever way).

To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:

They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.

?

Do you think that online casinos as defined above run rigged games? Do you think they help laundering money?

At least I will give you an out and you don’t need to keep climbing mirrors.

You clearly have a guilty conscious about the money you earned from gamblers. Or you are being paid for this shilling.

No, I simply don’t like bullshit, and your arguments are full of it. I strongly dislike the gambling industry, but for reasons based on facts, not on what I heard in the beauty salon :) In fact, my whole point is that there are good, solid reasons to dislike gambling and online casinos. The bullshit you quoted is not part of it because it’s false.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

if someone is creating a new standard for banking sites

Not part of the discussion. You are straining pretty hard in your efforts to “win”.

And online casinos don’t include fake online casinos.

Yes, they do. The clue is in the name.

sudneo ,

Not part of the discussion. You are straining pretty hard in your efforts to “win”.

I am making an example to prove a point. The point is simple “industry” doesn’t contain the scammers who try to abuse it.

Yes, they do. The clue is in the name.

Genius take!

Answer the question, though. I repost it for your own convenience. We clear out all the bullshit semantic you brought up, and go straight to the point:

Let’s pretend you actually believe your bs, and let’s make a distinction:


<span style="color:#323232;">Online casinos = established businesses in the casino industry, operating with at least a license.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Fake casinos = scam websites that operate without a license and which spoof an online casino with the purpose of scamming users (in whatever way).
</span>

To which ones do you think your initial answer applies:


<span style="color:#323232;">They run rigged games in predatory ways. They happily let organised crime launder money for a cut. They fight regulations designed to reduce problem gambling.
</span>

?

  • Do you think that online casinos as defined above run rigged games?
  • Do you think they help laundering money?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

The point is simple “industry” doesn’t contain the scammers who try to abuse it.

It does. To illustrate this I linked to a bank website containing advice on combating phishing.

Here’s the definition I’m happy with.

Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry

Fake casinos = scammers

Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos

Combined because users find it hard to tell the difference.

sudneo ,

Answer the question, your definition doesn’t add much.

To which ones does your initial answer apply? Both legitimate and fake casinos?

It’s not a hard question.

P.s. I bet you wouldn’t be able to show me a fake casino if I asked. That’s because they are not a common problem. You are overinflating it to make your absurd definition more reasonable. But let’s not get into this…

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

To which ones does your initial answer apply?

Online casinos.

I bet you wouldn’t be able to show me a fake casino if I asked.

www.askgamblers.com/online-casinos/blacklisted

sudneo , (edited )

So both legitimate and fake? In other words you believe that both legitimate and fake casinos rig games, both help laundering money and both fight against regulations?

It’s a simple question, show a tiny bit of good faith :)

P.s., have you read your own link?

The blacklisting reasons have to do with scammy customer support, lack of license, stealing money. They don’t even mention rigging games or laundering money, which is what you claimed :)

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Your definition of “legitimate casino” excludes any casinos that rig games.

All businesses with financial operations are exposed to money laundering to some degree.

Regulations increase costs to implement. Only “legitimate casinos” fight them.

sudneo ,

It’s YOUR definition ahahah I literally took what you said and I am asking a question.

YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online. Now you are saying it doesn’t?

So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don’t rig games?

Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money, now you are retracting saying “are exposed”. No dude, taking a cut has intentionality behind, being exposed is a natural risk for any business which moves money. You claimed the first.

So, one last time:

  • do legitimate casinos rig games?
  • do legitimate casinos help laundering money?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

It’s YOUR definition

Nope. It’s you who is obsessed with separation of “legitimate casinos”.

YOU said, legitimate + fake = online. I asked to which you applied the answer and you said online.

Correct

Now you are saying it doesn’t?

Incorrect.

So, do we agree that legitimate casinos don’t rig games?

You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games.

Also, you mentioned taking a cut to help laundering money,

Incorrect. I said casinos are used to launder money.

now you are retracting saying “are exposed”.

No retraction necessary.

  • do legitimate casinos rig games?

Online casinos rig games. You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games. A normal internet user cannot tell the difference.

  • do legitimate casinos help laundering money?

Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.

sudneo ,

Your quote:

Here’s the definition I’m happy with. Legitimate casinos = established businesses in the casino industry Fake casinos = scammers Online casinos = legitimate casinos + fake casinos

You forgot already? A link to your own comment.

You have defined legitimate casinos as ones that don’t rig games.

I didn’t define shit, you defined legitimate casino as a partition of online casino.

Look what triple jump you are making to avoid saying a very simple thing: legitimate casinos, defined as YOU did (established businesses in the casino industry) don’t rig games. All because you can’t admit to be wrong :)

So, I will ask once again:

  • do legitimate casinos, as in YOUR definition, rig games, according to you?

Yes or no question.

Yes. Not necessarily knowingly. Income from internet gambling is tainted.

I would argue with this point, but I won’t. It doesn’t matter, I accept the theoretical possibility of money laundering. For some reason I was mistakenly taking the top comment of this thread as your comment. I even quoted it several times and you didn’t note that that’s not your comment… my bad.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , (edited )

I didn’t define shit

Here is your definition (not mine) where you separate “legitimate businesses” from “scam organizations”

So when I talk about online casinos, I refer to the legitimate businesses that are gambling businesses, not scam organizations that happen to use gambling as their cover

I’m saying this line is not clear cut, particularly for the average Internet user. A yes/no answer is not possible.

I was mistakenly taking the top comment of this thread as your comment.

Easily done. Thanks for clarifying.

sudneo ,

Yes, but I am asking to answer according to your own definition! I specified it, I quotes it, I wrote YOUR in caps, I can’t add flashing lights or I would.

You provided a definition, I am asking a simple question with that definition in mind.

According to YOUR definition, do legitimate casinos rig games?

Come on, how many more comments do you need to answer this simple query?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Online casinos rig games.

From the end user point of view, the subset of legitimate casinos (that, following your definition, don’t rig or scam) cannot be easily identified.

sudneo ,

I give up. You refuse to engage in good faith.

What user can tell is irrelevant, we are talking about your “taxonomy” and the properties that carries being in one or other category.

You might not be able to distinguish a legitimate casinos by a fake one, but if in your opinion legitimate ones also rig games, this is irrelevant. If they don’t, then what users can tell is a completely separate problem.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

we are talking about your “taxonomy”

No. That’s what you are trying to forum slide to.

I’m sticking to the point that online casinos are scammy, including legitimate, regulated operators.

You might not be able to distinguish a legitimate casinos by a fake one,

Not just me. Any average Joe.

but if in your opinion legitimate ones also rig games, this is irrelevant.

Your doggedness for wanting agreement that some casino games may not be rigged is impressive

what users can tell is a completely separate problem.

But a problem very much related to “what’s wrong with online casinos”.

sudneo ,

Indeed I want to make a distinction. Because thinking legitimate casinos rig games is completely different from thinking scammy ones do.

In fact, you had no argument whatsoever to prove those do, including your external sources that recommended basically in all cases to stick to licensed sites, proving that there is a difference (duh). On the other hand, having worked in the industry and understanding both how casinos integrate games and how compliance works, I have explained to you why there are generally not technical means AND no economic incentive for legitimate casinos to rig games.

I will repeat the points for you:

  • legitimate casinos undergo certification and audits. Every piece of code change is analyzed periodically and so does the functionality of basically everything on the sites.
  • most importantly, casinos don’t develop games, they purchase them from providers. They don’t have access to the code, as games are served directly by the maker, so they can’t change the code to tweak odds.
  • the game makers don’t have any incentive of jeopardizing their whole business to let a customer earn more money illegally.

The above applies to essentially every licensed casino, every legitimate casino.

You failed to acknowledge any of these points, and you argued for 15 comments about scammy websites, bringing now the conversation back to where we started.

The reason why I want an agreement that legitimate (not some!) casinos don’t rig games is specifically because I provided arguments (technical and economical) for why that’s the case. So your refusal to make any distinction while also refusing to provide any proof to support your claim just results in a vague and messy discussion, exactly like your insane definition of “online casinos” that includes scam websites. You refuse to be accurate :)

But a problem very much related to “what’s wrong with online casinos”.

It’s not. It’s something casinos (real ones) can’t do anything about, the same way banks or shops can’t do anything about. This is an extremely tiny problem because official means exist to recognize legitimate ones since there are trusted authorities that certify them. In fact, given the existence of central national authorities it is much easy to be sure that a casino is legitimate than a shop, for example. I will tell you more: rigged games (and therefore fake casinos) are a MINOR problem in the industry in general. It is absolutely a terrible argument to say what’s wrong with casinos, because it’s something the vast majority of the people will never even encounter in a life of gambling. However, there are plenty of reasons why casinos can be considered bad based on the regular operations of legitimate casinos, not based on your fairytales.

So yes, I am stuck on wanting an acknowledgement that legitimate casinos don’t rig games because I know how that works, unlike you. Here is how I conclude this conversation, since we are at a moot point:

If you fail to acknowledge tha rigging games is very very unlikely (I will keep the theoretical possibility in case there are suicidal CEOs) in legitimate casinos, then I will call your argument bullshit until you have any proof. Specifically, you should explain what economic incentive do legitimate casinos (licensed) to rig games, and how do you think they can do that. If you fail to provide any argument in support of this while also refusing to make a distinction in your original claim, then I know you are arguing in bad faith, so I will simply block you and move on.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

You have defined legitimate casinos as only ones that don’t rig games or do scams. A priori you are correct.

There are enough illegitimate online casinos to create a problem for the whole industry.

Online casinos = scam

explain what economic incentive do legitimate casinos (licensed) to rig game

They don’t have enough users so they need to squeeze their regular punters harder.

Even your beloved “legitimate” casinos do “rig” games by offering different odds at different times to different people. They scam people by restricting the amount that can be withdrawn (and other ToS tricks). They create user interfaces to maximise player losses.

sudneo ,

I am in no way using this definition right now, I am using the definition you provided (established businesses) and I generally use it interchangeably with “licensed”, because to operate you need at least a license.

So it’s not a tautology.

There are enough illegitimate online casinos to create a problem for the whole industry.

Incorrect. Also creating a problem for is not defining the industry itself. There are phishing bank sites to create a problem for the banking industry, but only an idiot would answer “they steal your identity/card details” to the question “why are online banks bad”.

They don’t have enough users so they need to squeeze their regular punters harder.

Incorrect. You forgot to address “how”. I will also add another item to the “you have no idea what you are talking about”. Players losing is a sure way to lose even more customers. In fact if you knew something about the industry you would know that new companies operate on much lower margins that established ones. Bet365 might operate on a 7-9% margin, a new company operates on 1,2,3%. The idea that squeezing more existing customers, besides being technically impossible, is absurd. It’s a huge business risk (you lose your license and then you will have 0 customers).

Even your beloved “legitimate” casinos do “rig” games by offering different odds at different times to different people.

First, I don’t like casinos, despite having worked for one, I have played on less sites than you did. I like even less bullshit though, hence my pleasure in clearing the world from yours. Second, that is not rigging at all. You know it, I know it, it is absolutely not what you meant, and I am embarrassed for you for trying to use this terrible rethorical trick to now bend the word rigging. Rigging means that you expect the odds to win are X but instead behind the scene are Y (<X). Offering odds first of all is not a casino thing, it’s a sportsbook thing, and second of all is transparent to the user. Finally, odds obviously change over time, as estimated probability does…

Listen, you are just a guy on the internet with a big mouth and a family supply of bad faith. I showed you multiple times that your claim are bullshit and that much smarter people than you took care of the problems you claim affect casinos (rigged games and money laundering).

You failed to provide any argument from any of your claims and now you proved to argue in bad faith. As promised, I will make you a favour and block you, so you don’t have to keep embarrassing yourself. Take this as a chance to reflect on maybe not arguing on something you don’t understand fully, and maybe to learn from someone who knows more than you, as I try to do in the many occasions where I make mistakes or know little about something. Your claim at the moment is false. It’s a conspiracy theory that you repeat and might believe, but it’s false. Deal with it. You can use the very real and many reasons to consider casinos bad, do that.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In ,

Blocking someone is the Lemmy equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “la la la I can’t hear you”.

But if this civil discussion has led you to that point then maybe we should let the topic lie and get on with our lives.

stanleytweedle ,

Is meth bad? Would a company that specifically targets meth sales to the most likely drug using demographics be bad? Would a company that sold meth in shiny, futuristic containers that said “Lucky Dreams!” be bad?

Trarmp ,

I was reading the blog post by the casino’s tech person and kept thinking to myself, “this is a casino; they may not be the most reliable narrator”. That said, CF was also stupid slow on taking down kiwi and stormfront, so they’re not great either.

Both of them suck and this whole thing is amusing to me. Hopefully this will serve to improve CF’s behaviour.

Agent641 ,

What was kiwi?

SqueakyBeaver ,

A website similar to 4chan, but much much worse. They’d dox pretty much anyone they didn’t like, often LGBTQ+ people and allies

Telorand , (edited )

KiwiFarms, a forum dedicated to doxxing and IRL harassing of LGBTQ people, women, and anyone else they didn’t like. It was is a breeding ground for Nazis and other Conservative bigots and their ideologies, and they successfully harassed people into moving and hiding (or worse).

Edit: they’re still around

Tartas1995 ,

For those horrible enough to like this.

Sometimes each other too if my information is correct. So even if you are a bad person and want to harass innocent people, kiwi farms isn’t the place to be.

Bad people are bad people towards you too if you give them the chance. Just don’t be bad, much better. Don’t hate!

Schadrach ,

They target anyone a critical mass of their users think might be entertaining to target, and yeah that sometimes includes each other.

Better to give them a wide berth and try not to draw the attention of the snarling horde with too much time on it’s hands.

Schadrach ,

Specifically, it started out to track, dox, and harass Chris-Chan (originally just for being a weirdo though they eventually came out as trans and made news in 2021 for being arrested for incest). The nearly two decade old (since 2007) ongoing campaign against them means they are probably the single most documented human being in history.

They don’t often target women just for being women, but much like with trans people and furries they also hate a hate-on for crowdfunded youtube personalities and fat acceptance and all of those groups do have their share of women (especially the last one - fat acceptance is primarily about women). They even target fundamentalist Christians and Quiverfull families sometimes (which tend to be very Conservative).

Also, there’s no “was” - they still exist are are operating.

lud ,

It isn’t clodflare’s job to take down or in any way take a stance on what websites they are providing most likely only DDOS and DNS services for.

That’s for example why privacy sites can use them.

It’s the police or maybe hosting provider that should decide when/if to take down sites.

If cloudflare were hosting the site I think they have more responsibility.

trashgirlfriend ,

I feel like if you’re protecting a site that has caused as much harm as kf, it might be morally correct to stop doing so.

MacFearrs ,

Por qué no los dos?

Bougie_Birdie ,
@Bougie_Birdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/6884d521-3a3f-41a4-b0bf-db4915897004.png

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •