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?