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.