Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

I'd also be surprised if they were using AWS in a way that their code remained easily portable to other providers. Perhaps they really were keeping it portable, but I find AWS an odd choice in that case. From my perspective the whole point of AWS is to build with their APIs.

Tony "Abolish ICE" Arcieri

Replying to

and

I don't see how else you store 80TB+ of data on AWS without using S3. Perhaps they built in abstractions for using other S3-like stores, but if they're going "bare metal", what are they going to do? Deploy something like Ceph or Minio on top of 80TB self-managed disks?

Replying to

and

Yeah, exactly. Since they were using AWS, I assume they were using assorted AWS APIs. They can't simply self-host their services and have it working again. There's a lot more involved than simply setting up some servers with standard services. They need a bunch of development.

Replying to

and

If I was building that kind of large platform, I'd want to do it on top of something that I could self-host. Thankfully, I don't work on anything like that and have no plans for it. The kinds of services we need are all static file servers or services without cross-account data.

Replying to

and

I don't think they ever seriously considered that it would be difficult to find hosting. Hosting user-generated content with nearly non-existent moderation is enough to make that a problem even without going out of the way to attract the audience that they brought over to it.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

They don't realize their party has gone completely off the rails. They genuinely see it as creating a social media platform for conservatives in the US. They don't realize that's not what they are anymore or what they created. So glad that I don't live in the US. It's unreal.

Replying to

and

I don't think it was ever on their radar that they would need to make the site resilient to being taken down. If they had approached it as building a controversial site likely to be rejected by many service providers, I doubt they'd have had problems keeping it available.

Replying to

and

I doubt they'd have even had any problems with using Cloudflare as a reverse proxy indefinitely. Not that it would have made sense to rely on that, but it shows how little effort was put into trying to keep it up. Cloudflare happily provides services to worse sites than this.

4:23 PM · Jan 12, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Look at blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-termina. > The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. And if they really wanted they could use more fringe services not based in the US like CF.

blog.cloudflare.com

Why We Terminated Daily Stormer

Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that...