Those two statements are not in contradiction though. If KiwiFarms is trying to get people to commit suicide in a willful way that breaks the law, surely they can be brought before the law. If you are attempting to DDoS the infrastructure of somebody because you disagree with them, you are committing an illegal act too. Perhaps terrorism is a bit far, but what gives the people who commit the DDoS the right to do so? No society should allow people to be punished without a due process.

I also can't go shoot up suspected criminals, that's called vigilantism and is criminal. Even if I knew they did it.

True.

Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere. Someone walks up to it and sets it on fire. Should the local fire department put it out? Assume it's not going to spread to other buildings/etc.

Is Cloudflare a government service? Do local fire departments remove copyright infringers' sheds?

First of, not all fire departments are government services. Sometimes they are private associations of volunteers that receive marginal if any taxpayer support. Other times, they are for-profit corporations. This is particularly true when another company needs specialized firefighting services because they are remote or handle materials and situations the local government-supported firefighters aren't equipped to handle.

> Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere.

A shed in the middle of nowhere, so let us suppose the nearest government supported fire department is a two hour drive away, and so KF hires a private for-profit firefighting company. With that modification to patmcc's comment, what is your response now?

Cloudflare is not a private association of volunteers. Private fire fighting services are not called fire departments commonly, are plural, and are not local frequently. My response is still the analogy is bad. We can understand the situation better without trying to imagine what fire would be like if it didn't spread.

I did not compare cloudflare to a private association of volunteers. I am suggesting they are comparable to a private for-profit firefighting company. Can you respond to this?

If KF farms hires a private for-profit firefighting company, and then political activists commit arson against KF, should the private for-profit firefighting company put out the fire? Or does your political ideology oblige firefighters to side with arsonists?

> I did not compare cloudflare to a private association of volunteers.

The point was your lecture on fire fighting services was irrelevant to the context.

> I am suggesting they are comparable to a private for-profit firefighting company. Can you respond to this? If KF farms hires a private for-profit firefighting company, and then political activists commit arson against KF, should the private for-profit firefighting company put out the fire?

I did respond. I said the analogy had negative value. Continuing to mutate the analogy is just more evidence of it.

> Or does your political ideology oblige firefighters to side with arsonists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Can you explain why the comparison between a private fire department that frustrates vigilante arsonists and a private DDoS protection service that frustrates vigilante DDoSers is an analogy with "negative value"?

It's a platform of services like a government service is typically provisioned. While not a democratically elected government, they use governance all the same.

> It's a platform of services like a government service is typically provisioned.

It's a monopoly funded by taxes obligated to serve everyone?

> While not a democratically elected government, they use governance all the same.

This is meaningless.

I can see you're not interested in discussion at this time. No worries, we all have those days.

I did not say it was a government service, I said a platform functions a lot like a government service, especially when multihoming is limited due to switching costs.

> I did not say it was a government service, I said a platform functions a lot like a government service, especially when multihoming is limited due to switching costs.

You said it was like a government service is typically provisioned. And the costs of switching governments dwarf the costs of switching online services.

> I can see you're not interested in discussion at this time. No worries, we all have those days.

The same to you.

Some users of KiwiFarms may have the agenda of wanting to drive people to commit suicide, you seem to be accusing the website as a whole of a) having an agenda and b) that agenda being to drive people to kill themselves

What evidence is there for this? I haven't kept up with the website recently, is Null telling people to harass people to death?

Official statement from KF on Aug 26th:

> What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and nobody is allowed to say anything about it.

Wow very neutral site with no agenda here

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide?

This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.

Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025

For context, because I didn't know and I'd think others might not either: Apparently Chloe Segal killed herself by going to a public park and lighting herself on fire, telling witnesses in a spoken suicide note her reasons were homelessness and mental health issues.

Josh Moon then playing "Fire" ("I am the God of hellfire and I bring you fire") is in extremely bad taste and outright vile. I can very well see this as gloating.

And yet, it does not prove kiwifarms direct involvement. It's a short extract from a stream he did. Playing devil's advocate for a second, it for example might very well have been a response to media at the time already claiming he/kiwifarms was to blame for the suicide and therefore a rather misguided attempt to poke fun at what he might have considered unfair reporting.

I don't see him gloating about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself in that tweet or video. What I see is him making fun of her death? Reminds me of a video I saw of a photo of Donald Rumsfeld being burnt when he died last year. What am I missing?

He founded and operates the site and he reacted to her death by calling himself a god. In what way is that not gloating?

If the person burning the Rumsfeld photo contributed to his death then I might say they were gloating too.

Where is he calling himself a God?

Did you not watch the video in the tweet?

Yes? He says he'll play something tasteful as an out-trail then some video plays until the end.

Your comment would be far more useful if you actually said what I was missing instead of what you said.

I disagree. Often simply being noticed and notified can be enough for one to start to gain awareness.

Well given you still hasn't said what you're talking about I assume your intention was not to inform.

Correct. Rather, I noticed.

Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)?

I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.

Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.

It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.

So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts?

Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?

He’s talking about transgender people, not priests

And that just makes all the difference, don't it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.

Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?

There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.

I don't see anything about wanting to drive people to suicide.

It's difficult to take comments like this in good faith when the Github profile linked on your account prominently features your signature on a letter calling for Richard Stallman to be reinstated to the FSF after his resignation, following his comments defending sex with minors and child pornography.

Knowing that my comment had such an impact on you that you went through my profile AND posted a screenshot of it to twitter made me smile :)

I'd leave a comment about your own profiles but I think they speak for themselves...

The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.

Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

Do you think that supports the claims made above?

yes, ofcourse

Somebody who isn't a doctor, giving medications to a child without their parent's knowledge or permission? That's surely in violation of the law.

What law? She's not giving anyone hormones, you know. She shares information about informed consent clinics, the effects of hormones, and places to buy safe supplies.

>> Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

> There is nothing wrong with that

This is the claim and response I am responding to.

That may be your opinion but lots of parents would not agree with it.

Yeah, but not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. This is generally recognized, and the reason why there is increasing clarification of the boundaries between the rights of parents and the rights of children. It's the reason that forced marriage and child brides have been outlawed in many countries. It's also the reason why child labour and child welfare, and protective services for children exist.

Should someone be providing HRT to children? Generally no. Has the child been prescribed that medication, and the parents are refusing, unable to, or actively preventing the child from getting that medication? Absolutely!

If this was in relation to insulin, antibiotics, or any other generally accepted medical prescription, the individual would be lauded. Because of transphobia and ignorance, sites like kiwifarms are being targetted by a bunch of relentless shitweasels who are hiding behind Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, something which Cloudflare is under absolutely no legal requirement to provide.

I don't want tech companies to become the arbiters of free speech, but I also don't think companies are obligated to provide services to a website owned by a person who gleefully celebrated the suicide of a victim of harassment.

Now that I am not an employee there anymore, one thing I am absolutely thrilled to say is that the Fastly approach with a Good Neighbour policy is awesome, and that alone (among many awesome things over the 5 years I was there) makes it a better company to work for than CloudFlare.

There's nothing in the original comment to suggest parents are ignoring the orders of a doctor.

Do you actually have something to add to the conversation? Your comments haven't particularly meaningful or insightful, so that's a genuine question.

There isn't a complete picture here. In this particular case, Keffals shared that she was supporting alternate paths to get HRT, and providing support for folks who were legally blocked from receiving gender affirming care due to laws passed by a government largely captured by right wing politicians.

Given the complexity of pursuing HRT, it's not unreasonable to reach the conclusion that a child in those circumstances being denied care is largely related to a lack of parental support, or from being actively prevented from getting treatment that doctors were clearly providing (since the government had to ban medical treatment in order to stop it).

What do I have to add? I am giving the opposing opinion here which from anecdotal experience is also the opinion of almost every parent I've met (n~=40) in contrast to the opinions of some people trying to give the impression that it's normal for children to be getting drugs from people they know online because that's what they want.

If the government bans some form of medical treatment and Keffals is trying to bypass this ban then this obviously would raise questions of legality.

Seriously?

> is Null telling people to harass people to death?

I'll treat you as though you're honest, but I might point out this is a dishonest person's favorite argument.

Here's the common answer in Twitter thread form: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089253502461952...

An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.

As for the Twitter thread I've heard plenty of similar arguments before but I'm not a particularly big believer in them. Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators) but that doesn't particularly mean that they are promoting or in agreement with the actions of their company.

> * An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.*

Which is why I continued on with addressing the argument.

> Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators)

False equivalency I'd say. Yes, the entertainment industry as a whole SUCKS. But if you think about it for even a second, you'll realize there is a difference between being an actor and being an open Nazi.

You didn't give me an argument you gave me a twitter thread. The argument I interpreted from the thread was if you let your bar be associated with a Nazi (because you served them) then down the road they will invite their other Nazi friends and eventually your bar will become a Nazi bar. In the context of this HN thread I take this argument to mean, well Null is associating with people who harassed this woman to death, therefore Null supports it. Which is why I gave the response I did.

Close, but you're missing the point. It becomes a Nazi bar, regardless of the owner's intentions for the bar. So arguing the semantics of one admin's beliefs is irrelevant.

What defines it being a Nazi bar? One patron? A dozen? A certain percentage of the patronage?

Also irrelevant. The Nazi bar is a metaphor.

A metaphor that can't be examined for implications has no value.

Metaphor for what? Supporting harassment to the point of suicide? There's lots of harassment on almost every social media site so the question of what defines it 'going over the edge' so to speak is a very important one to me.

That bartender's name? Albert Einstein.

users aren't the hosts

> Do you believe investigative journalism has a place in our society?

Yes and KiwiFarms is not investigative journalism - they're harrassing and doxxing private individuals with clearly personal malicious intent. The key part of investigative journalism is the "investigative", which there is no evidence of on KiwiFarm's part. No attempts to hold power to account, to expose serious breaches of power - just a horrid, all-consuming hatred and failure to respect other people's right to exist.

For _actual_ investigative journalism, see https://www.icij.org/

Do you think CNN should be driven off the internet? Back in 2017 they threatened and harassed an anonymous reddit user into apologizing for making a harmless gif [1]. How is CNN better than kiwifarms?

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-use...

If you believed that KF was performing "investigative journalism", you wouldn't be posting this with a throwaway.

If people really believed that doxxing was harmless, they'd be posting under their real names and addresses.

Except using an alias online is a large part of internet culture. There are also a lot of people that do use their real names online.

I’m not telling strangers, in-person or online, my address.

And that would make sense when it comes to people like you or others with aliases, but an alias like "wyre" or "pc" aren't exactly hiding themselves, just using a nickname, similarly to how in high school my peers called me Seneca (because my first day I wore my old school's t-shirt). I wasn't hiding who I am by going by that, just not using my real name.

But "throwawayacc2" doesn't get that same meaning.

You are exactly the kind of person that makes me use names like this.

Ideas need no name. Argue the idea, not the human behind it.

Or failing that, perhaps consider relocating to China or Russia. You will find their attitudes to internet anonymity more to your liking.

So you are afraid of people doing to you what you do to others. Incredible levels of hypocrisy and cowardice you've achieved here - congrats!

It's not your pro-anonymity attitude they were criticizing. Try again.

> I’m not telling strangers, in-person or online, my address.

But what if there was a website that told strangers your address associated with your handle?

Perhaps political dissidents in the USSR should have been more open with their criticisms as well :)

"throwawayacc2" is an account well over a year old with 400+ karma. His name does not appear to be correlated with his actual account activity.

Imagine thinking this drivel somehow applied to this thread.

You shouldn't make new accounts for this sort of thing you know - cowards who hide from perfectly legal doxxing and "investigative journalism" in defense of such "harmless" actions come across as sus. Why should you be ashamed of your opinion - you are entitled to free speech right?

It’s actually relevant since it’s one of the only sites on the web where you can express an opinion like that and not be removed