The bartender example is so wrong that it has wrapped around into rightness.
What really happens is that the bartender signals the cooler to throw out said patrons to settle it some place where it isn't their liability. It goes to the street, who knows where and what they'll do to each other.
And that's pretty much what cloudflare is doing here, saying "you can't do this in here" and now we get to see where the chips fall.
Re:Blocking Kiwifarms
by JumpCrisscross on Saturday September 03, 2022 @08:42PM
(#32708317)
> What really happens is that the bartender signals the cooler to throw out said patrons to settle it some place where it isn't their liability. It goes to the street, who knows where and what they'll do to each other
This is more accurate, thank you. Either way, not a failure of law enforcement. (It is if the bartender calls the cops, they do nothing, and the victim turns up the next day in a hand basket.)
Re:Blocking Kiwifarms
by anonymouse008 on Saturday September 03, 2022 @08:10PM
(#32708003)
Nice metaphor - were the digital offenses becoming actual acts of violence in person?
Re:Blocking Kiwifarms
by freeone3000 on Saturday September 03, 2022 @08:12PM
(#32708025)
Yes.
The governments have had years to deal with kiwifarms and its criminal users, and failed.
Re:Blocking Kiwifarms
by LawTalkingGuy on Sunday September 04, 2022 @11:31AM
(#32714089)
The criminals are the ones impersonating KF users. They swatted a government official in their attempt to get rid of the site.
Giving in to them is allowing domestic terrorism.
If one patron starts beating another to a pulp, the bartender breaking up the fight does not signify a failure of the rule of law or law enforcement. You stepped in to help. It would be nice if you were given official air cover to do so. But I and most Americans prefer a system where the government has extra hoops to jump through to halt even dangerous speech.