Do you mean the legal definition of harassment, or the just colloquial one? If the legal one, then use the legal system to stop it instead of vigilantism. If just the colloquial one, then it is a free speech issue.

If I think my customer is using my service to harass people do I need to sue them? Or can I just refuse business? It's not the same as refusing to make a gay cake either, because you can't discriminate based on someone being an asshole.

it's the other way around, you can discriminate against arseholes

there's specific prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of certain categories

Do you think legal processes can be flawed?

Yes, but when it is, we should just fix it, rather than resorting to vigilantism.

> rather than resorting to vigilantism

Where/how is vigilantism occurring?

Kiwifarms users are engaging in vigilantism against their targets, and it's not even vigilantism for a real crime - it's vigilantism for the "crime" of being transgender.

I believe the parent comment was implying vigilantism on the part of ISPs/providers for the actions they’ve taken against KF.

I agree that the participants there are engaging in something closer to vigilantism, although I don’t think they actually believe they have a righteous cause, they’re just unabashedly intolerant and enjoy harassing people which is something else.

This isn't quite accurate. While they do disproportionately make threads about people who are trans, they have plenty of threads about cis people as well. It's not like they target random transgender people. If anything, the "crime" would be being Internet-famous.

And many of the things they post is about immoral/illegal actions. You don't really become a target for them for being well behaved.

It's vigilantism in the sense that people are trying to take down their service on every possible layer (in this case: peering/infrastructure) but no one is willing to make a legal case against them.

But how is this vigilantism, which implies taking the law into one’s own hands?

There doesn’t need to be a legal case to refuse service to someone using your services for harassment.

If a group of people make a hobby out of walking into gay bars and verbally abusing customers, it’s not vigilantism to refuse service to those groups / kick them out.

One can be banned from an establishment for far less.

The thing is that at a certain level, things just become essential infrastructure to function.

Moon has its own server, its own network (AS), a colocation that is willing to host his server as long as he does not violate US law or ignores incoming complaints.

But now it's the peering companies just refusing to route to them, based on some complaints that might not even be fact checked. For many that could be considered essential infrastructure, since you cannot simply start your own peering company.

For reference, his .is domain was taken down since people complained about CSAM hosted on his site. But in fact the links provided were not CSAM. But who is willing to check with that and potentially having to deal with law enforcement as a consequence for this? Likely no one, thus they drop him to stay on the safe and easy side then to protect a costumer that's could be trouble, even if some accusations are wrong.

It's a bit similar as with roads or with the post. Many people dislike Joe Rogan I guess. But imagine now disallowing him to drive on certain roads, UPS/DHL refusing to send packages to his address, AT&T disconnecting his lines because they disagree with him.

Surely at some point you cannot just build everything on your own.

And that's all for services that are (still) considered to be legal, but for which companies just are not willing to take up the heat.

For one, KF constantly faces DDoS attacks.

One could argue that a great many things have been left up for corporations to decide, especially in the US. That is by design.

I would of course also love to see this addressed in legislature, but that seems unlikely given the current political climate.

Cloudflare isn't required to host your site because you pay them money. Unless that changes, I don't see how they're in the wrong here.

Something about spending most of your time defending scoundrels comes to mind.

What is harassment? Is it talking about people on a website? People say that stating someone's address, phone number, email, is a form of doxing and therefore harassment. But, these things are just statements of fact. To say that the statement and sharing of factual information obtained legally is not a free speech issue is completely disingenous, 12 years ago when WikiLeaks was leaking information which had been given to them illegally (they didn't recieve the information illegally, but the whistleblower did break the law) they were thrown off of AWS, PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, Bank of America, for the crime of sharing documents. The highest profile free speech related issues on the internet have always been about what you should and shouldn't be able to share publicly.

We keep seeing actions from Kiwifarms that include doxing, swatting,and cyber bullying that lead to the suicide and death of people.

If you're saying that swatting is free speech, then we've pushed the idea of speech beyond all reasonable boundaries and have decided that speech just means that people are free from consequences of their actions.

Have you visited this website? I have. I found what I assume to be doxes which you have to log in to the website if you'd like to view, but that's factual information, why is the statement of factual information so heinous that this website must be taken off the internet? I saw some pretty mean things, but nobody was saying that you should go say these things on other people's profiles, they just kept these mean things on their website. I didn't see anybody organising swattings, or any other sort of criminal activity.

I haven't seen any news reports which substantiate these claims that Kiwi Farms is a haven of criminality, just allegations in newspapers which are presented as fact. I've seen no way to verify that any of these claims are in fact true, nobody has.

Hello readers. "bigshell" lives at 1539 William St SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. How about all you folks who think "bigshell" is incorrect go and show him your numbers?

 

Now, this isn't bigshell's real address. This is a random place from Google Maps and in fact I picked a gap between existing addresses just in case. But tell me, bigshell, if this had been your real address, would you be okay with it?

My public address is on the internet if you Google my full name, it's public record as I've registered a company to my name, and it's also on WHOIS records for domain names and IP addresses. You can also find it on the White Pages, which I have nothing to do with and I have no idea how it got there and it was there before I ever had anything on public record with my name and address.

I'm not thrilled with it but everyone has the full right to copy and share public records and factual information. I'm not taking the morality of said copying or sharing into question here, I just don't see why you can't reproduce public records of factual information.

And how would I get from "bigshell" to your full name and company name?

You wouldn't be able to, I don't really post anything on HN that would really tie back to my uneventful and unremarkable real life. I don't see what this has to do with the fact that if you Google someone you can find public records of them, and that you should be able to reproduce and share factual information.

Do you think everyone has a right to comment your full name and address below your comments?

Sure, print it in a book or on your blog, on a sign outside your house, or on a postcard, or with green eggs and ham.

Mind telling me what it is so I can utilize that right?

I'm on the internet writing from an anonymous HN account. I get to choose what you know about me. Obviously, I want to stay anonymous, so I'm not going to compromise my anonymity by telling you my address. If you find it, go post it to your blog or wherever you wish.

If I link a social media profile to my real name, or something that identifies me, that's my responsibility.

You said you had absolutely no problem with me exercising my right to post your real name and address here. I can't do that unless you tell me. The fact you don't want to tell me indicates that actually, you DO have a problem with me exercising that right.

In general "factual information" is not a defense to a whole bunch of things that society generally recognizes as not protected by free speech (the broad concept, not solely the legal right). I cannot claim to be lawyer and provide you with legal advice, even if that legal advice is correct. I cannot redistribute copies of Taylor Swift's latest album, even if (perhaps especially if) it is a faithful copy. I cannot make a public list of all the black people at my company who show up late to work and leave the white people off that list, even if I'm accurate about when they're showing up. If I am a doctor, I cannot publish transcripts of all the conversations I have with patients.

And a few of these aren't even heinous! If I happen to be self-taught in the law and I am particularly good at giving wise and helpful legal advice, but I am not actually admitted to the bar, nobody is directly hurt by my advice, but society has decided the potential for harm in this situation is high enough that I still shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Addresses aren't copyrighted, and workplace health and safety and discrimination or doctor patient confidentiality don't really fall under this because this information like addresses was already public. And if this information becomes public, whether illegally or legally, you're allowed to republish it. Data breaches get shared all the time and that's legal to do because it's considered public information. You are allowed to publish books and news articles with names and addresses in them, or your legal opinions even if you haven't passed the bar exam (also it's worth noting that this is an American idea) and that's not illegal, so why not websites?

Swatting is not free speech. Posting the address of someone (knowing that there's a non-zero chance some idiot might use it in a swatting) is generally free speech, because negligent or reckless speech is usually protected.

It's irresponsible, but it's generally protected.

I never said swatting was free speech. I know people who have been SWATted over petty Minecraft related disputes before, and I've had people threaten to call the police on me before and tell them that I'm going to rock up to a crowded event with a carbomb. It's a very scary thing, and I don't have an issue with outlawing false emergency services calls that aim to mobilize unnecessarily militarized police forces.

Luckily, Kiwi Farms has always denied having anything to do with swattings, and there has never been anything to substantiate the claim that people are organising swattings on Kiwi Farms. It is (or was) a public website, so if people are really planning this criminal activity in plain sight it should not really be too difficult to provide evidence for this.

The addresses on Kiwi Farms are already public. They're on the White Pages, public voter registries, WHOIS records, legal filings. Do you think that Kiwi Farms not sharing these addresses would somehow prevent a criminal from getting these addresses?

Edit: I completely misread the comment sorry, I thought your statement "swatting is illegal" was implying that Kiwi Farms had been organising swattings, etc. I'm not going to delete this comment though because I like to think its contents make a good point.