>The fact that Kiwifarms have won every suit against them is an example of the legal systems failings.

Is this "I don't like the rulings of the court." or "The rulings of the court fly in utter defiance of legal evidence presented."?

Because if it is the former, you are the actual part of the real problem.

Winning in court every single time is a pretty strong argument that they aren't breaking the law even if they are disagreeable.

Kiwifarms legal opponents aren't celebrities, or politicians, or even ordinary people. They are some of the most vulnerable individuals in society. If I had to be sued by somebody I would pick someone living with severe mental health issues every single time.

I'm not arguing that the court should ignore the law and rule otherwise, I'm arguing that the law itself should be changed.

Something can be both legal and ethically wrong. You can apply your same reasoning to Cloudflare's censorship of Kiwifarms: nothing Cloudflare did in this case was illegal, so what is your issue with it?

This is simply not accurate. There are countless threads on politicians, media personalities, business people and others.

Just because the site started with Chris Chan (an individual with his own issues) doesn’t mean that similar individuals are the site’s only purview.

>I'm not arguing that the court should ignore the law and rule otherwise, I'm arguing that the law itself should be changed.

So long as you're arguing that instead of "tHe CoUrTs ArE nAzIs", then I have nothing else to add because I'm in full agreement with your sentiment concerning law.

>nothing Cloudflare did in this case was illegal, so what is your issue with it?

Of course; Cloudflare has a right to freedom of association and fundamentally I support whatever they choose to do, legally speaking.

However, there is a consequential problem in that the internet is becoming more and more centralized by the day and Cloudflare access is one of those facets.

Generally speaking, if you're a big website you either need Cloudflare or your own CDN to distribute the load and ward off hostile entities.

Consequently, Cloudflare is able to dictate a significant portion of the discourse on the internet by simply allowing or blocking their services. This wouldn't be a big deal if the internet was decentralized like it should be, but it isn't so the internet can't route around such nonsense anymore.

> The fact that they were found not guilty of crimes is proof that they're guilty of crimes as well as that the legal system is complicit.

The site exists to document the lives of and poke fun at some of the most vulnerable people in society. Even if explicit calls for illegal actions are banned, being featured on Kiwifarms is like having a target painted on your back. Their efforts to violate these individuals privacy and pry into every aspect of their lives is just incredibly immoral.

If Kiwifarms users can't see that what they are doing already is unethical, why should anyone believe that they truly think these other illegal actions are wrong? They just know not to talk about it out loud because then you will actually get in trouble with the law.

The only reason the site has been able to get away with it for so long is because they are targeting vulnerable people who are least well equipped to legally defend themselves.

As I already explained, those more extreme individuals plan these actions in more covert locations - smaller forums, subreddits, image boards, discord, telegram groups, etc. There are no rules banning such behaviour in these places. The owner and mods of KF actively not only delete such content but repeatedly remind people of the prohibition. They also actively report users who violate US law and fully cooperated with any legal demands brought by State and Federal law enforcement. Josh has even banned mods who disagreed or facilitated such behaviour outside the forums.

So kf is a target finding service. The nasty work is done "elsewhere", just like a good terrorists organization - keep the wetwork in small cells while the political arm directs them in plausibly deniable ways.

Not sure how you think this makes it ethical.

You and others keep citing "deleted within hours" as evidence of the site admins doing something to address the problem, when the horse has already left the barn. People who participate in those activities almost certainly have email or mobile alerts set up and have long since copied the victim's information.

I'd say it's evidence of conspiring to delete evidence before victims and law enforcement can act, particularly if the threads are completely deleted, as opposed to being locked and moved to a mod-only area so the posts are preserved for law enforcement action.

Are there any automated filters that detect personal information, filters that are trivial to employ?

Are the users who post doxxing/violence threads banned?

What is the purpose of the forum in the first place? Answer: to harass and doxx trans people.

I wonder how [redacted] would feel if people knew he was defending a site that exists solely to harass trans people.

You can't bring in someone's personal details like that in an HN thread, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. I've redacted them now.

It's pretty shocking that you'd have done this in a comment right after asking whether users who post doxxing threads are banned. The answer on HN, btw, is yes—although if an account has a lot of history on the site, as yours does, we tend not to ban on first offence.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32729939 for more about this.