Ever since i've started to pay attention to kiwifarms from cloudflare dropping them i've been trying to get the evidence of any harassment coming from there and not being extremely looked down upon/banned and have come out almost empty handed. The scraps i've got are from chris chan in like 2013/2014?
This is the kind of dangerous "everyone knows that it is clear they do X thing hence there is no need for evidence".
Now to be fair I don't doubt harassment comes from individual kiwifarms users, maybe even organizing with other people somewhere else, but taking down the website will not change that, and guilt by association is a dangerous thing.
*none that I could find in the previous threads/most articles about it that is. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
As far as I've been able to tell, Moon allows anyone to express any viewpoint on his forum.
No they didn't. Null and the mods are very, very emphatic that harassment is unacceptable (hence the phrase he loves to hate, "Don't touch the poop"). Further, nobody was ever nominated as a lolcow simply for being trans. There's nothing particularly funny about that. OTOH, people falsely accusing streamers of rape and trying to get hormones to minors all while holding yourself out as some kind of moral person? Yeah, that's pretty funny.
> A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled.
There are exactly three people alleged to have offed themselves, and not one of them ever actually did it because of KF. That too is documented at KF since it's a lie that comes up so often. Since you're familiar with this, though, I'm sure you can name them. I'll wait.
There is an entire forum called "Stinkditch". It exists to make fun of, and harass, trans people online pretty much for being trans and online.
Oh, and look at that... KF is back on the clearnet... so you can verify all this yourself.
You can find out more about Keffals' victims in their thread (NOTE: TOR link):
http://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyx...
EDIT: The "sexually explicit photos" are a video she did for a porn website. I'm not sure how this qualifies as "leaked" or "revenge porn".
...and there is still zero evidence Byuu killed himself, just the bald assertion of one person that was taken at face value by the media.
Wikipedia doesnt post the truth(it's impossible, really), they post things backed up by secondary sources, when the secondary sources are knowingly lying[1] at keffals request to not mention doxbin it's pretty hard to trust them.
[0]: search keffals doxbin on google, not linking to it. [1]:https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int... check chapter 3, all sources are inside, doxbin is website zero.
...you mean the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? The one which has been edited to support a viewpoint whose sole source is Keffals herself? That one?
I'm not impressed.
There is no evidence that Keffals was ever contacted by anybody other than her own assertion. Meanwhile, however, there is plenty of evidence that Keffals was part of a group that tried to get troubled teens access to hormones without the knowledge of their parents or physicians. That's all documented at KF. [1]
> Sorrenti later fled the country after her location was identified again
...conveniently omitting the fact that she was raided by the RCMP who seized evidence. It was after that raid she fled the country.
Honestly, you should never cite Wikipedia for anything.
[1] TOR link to Keffals' KiwiFarms thread - http://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyx...
Stop posting misinformation!
Are you:
Upset that people can spread rumors you think are false?
Upset that there are real world consequences to the stuff that's being said about you, independent of the truth of it?
Angry that you are labeled as nazi sympathizer because you hang out on a site that has a lot of nazis?
Embarassed that you subscribe to a belief summarized as "why are you upset? free speech!", and now you find yourself not championing the free speech of those attacking you?
Aware of the delicious irony of your position?
1. Why are you defending someone who tries to get children access to hormones without the knowledge of their parents or doctors?
2. Can you name one person who demonstrably offed themselves because of what goes on at KF? Please provide evidence.
3. Is it 'hate' to document peoples' horrible activities using their own words?
4. Would you be this snarky if someone was saying these sorts of things about, say, HN?
5. Are you upset that there are people in this word who don't blithely accept the word of Wikipedia and journalists but rather engage in investigative journalism themselves?
Thanks!
I'll go ahead and mark you down in the "cowardly kiwifool" column - that seems to be most of you. Strange.
Anyway, if you want to engage my questions I'll consider engaging in yours. (I use the same policy with you lot that I use with drug dealers, car salespeople and other unsavory hucksters - show me the goods then I'll give you what you're asking for if it's a reasonable exchange.)
> Help me out - your favorite hate site is getting trash talked and doxxed. Please fill out this questionnaire.
Is TMZ a hate site? Is anything a hate site just because people assert it without proof? Do you believe everything you are told by journalists?
> Upset that people can spread rumors you think are false?
Is it really spreading rumors when they're using your own posts?
> Upset that there are real world consequences to the stuff that's being said about you, independent of the truth of it?
So are you suggesting that nobody should ever say anything at all because someone might take it the wrong way? That sure sounds like giving in the to the Heckler's Veto. Perhaps you mean that there should be some forum for adjudicating disputes of fact about a person's reputation? In that case there is in fact just such a forum: It's called a court of law. If KF posters have said anything defamatory then feel free to try to sue them. Go ahead.
> Angry that you are labeled as nazi sympathizer because you hang out on a site that has a lot of nazis?
OBJECTION! Asserts facts not in evidence. Just because you assert a place has X in it does not mean that it has X in it. I mean, if we're going by that standard, I can point out that anyone who hangs out on Discord must be a furry and a pedophile because of... oh wait.
> Embarassed that you subscribe to a belief summarized as "why are you upset? free speech!", and now you find yourself not championing the free speech of those attacking you?
It is not "free speech" to engage in tortious interference. Do you understand the difference?
> Aware of the delicious irony of your position?
There is no irony. Only Zuul.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but I never said anything about legality, or even talked about it. Looks like you're going with the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal" before I even suggested you did anything wrong. Kinda sad that your default position isn't that you're in the right, just that you aren't breaking the law.
I'll leave you to your day with this: it might be worth your time to consider activities that benefit the world rather than just plodding from one technically legal trollfarm to the next - most people find the rewards of being useful quite nice. Cheers and good luck!
...because you want to steer the conversation to predetermined conclusions and are incensed that other people won't play along?
The era of the proletariat blindly believing whatever the petit bourgeoisie tell them is dead and gone, and attempts to silence the proletariat when petit bourgeoisie are caught doing unethical things doubly so. Information wants to be free.
Lol no silly. Because I want to have answers to my questions and an actual conversation, not sit around and play mental patty cake with someone incapable of participating in actual conversion. When your only response is to ask a bunch of nonsense questions that aren't in any way related to what I'm asking or saying, you aren't conversing, it's just some childish game of avoidance.
Maybe you should just admit that you just hate KF and don't care if they're silenced or not. That at least would be honest.
What's so "scumbag" in trying to rely on the law and law enforcement for getting rid of bad and harmful things? I'm a normal citizen, I'm perfectly happy to leave the judgement to the courts. Am I a scumbag because of this?
If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder.
The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.
Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
Many hold the opinion, as do I, that a felon serving their time and then being left unable to vote is a violation of their civil rights.
> If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
You haven't forfeighted anything. You've sold a commodity. That's not the same thing.
> Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
A platform is a privilege (e.g. a VPS), but they do have a right to common carrier infrastructure. The author talks about their ISP dropping them, which ISPs in the U.S. are considered common carriers (not sure about Paris). A common carrier cannot discriminate on it's clientele short of direct government action regarding criminal or national security issues. Neither of those is the case with KiwiFarms. Distasteful? Sure, but not criminal.
Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty.
> Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.
I have no way of verifying this and I suspect neither do you.
What I have seen is that the owners have explicit rules laid down that state that coordinating harassment is not allowed, which seems very much like a measure taken.
and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
No, they want to make sure they are not fostering the market for the things you mention. Such that, yes, they are, in effect, limiting the veracity and effectiveness with which you can say and spread these things. That it makes it a little harder for you to see them, is a side show, at best. It is also harder for you to see illicit pictures of people, but we don't see that as an attack on freedom.
What utter nonsense.
> Despite all that, the Internet has one more weak point: Denial of Service Attacks. These attacks use compromised computers to send massive amounts of junk data to a single point, blotting out legitimate traffic and potentially overwhelming target devices.
Where's the lie?
This is extremely disingenuous. The request to take the video down came attached with a request to give them all the IPs of people from NZ, when the people in NZ were being liable for jailing by simply having the video in their possesion[0], i quote:
>While he said that those who spread the video in New Zealand risked arrest and imprisonment, he warned all New Zealanders that even innocent possession of the video was a crime. “If you have a record of it, you must delete it,” he said. “If you see it, you should report it. Possessing or distributing it is illegal and only supports a criminal agenda.”
The response to new zealand was great and deserved, and i'll cheer for it the same way i'd cheer for someone denying a request from saudi arabia or china or whatever other more authoritarian government trying to take shit down across borders
[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20201111221018/https://www.nytime...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-figh...
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
― H.L. Mencken
Granting someone the power to decide who does and doesn't get to speak never ends well. It's that "power corrupts" thing.
.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Answering fists with words doesn't always work (it can sometimes if the people using fists are subject to public opinion that you can influence, but that's fairly limited circumstances).
But pretending that words are fists in order to manufacture an excuse to respond with fists is something else, and is a misreading of that footnote you referenced to ignore the thing it's a footnote to.
I thought the whole "#dropkiwifarms" thing was more shaped like an organized pressure campaign, rather than every new provider he signs on with organically deciding within days that his interactions with them are deliberately obnoxious.
Another: there's law that already prohibits publishing some of the content deemed harmful. Like that law or not, it's there. The OP stresses that his web sites do not break the law. I'm not a lawyer nor KF user, so I wouldn't know, but what's so wrong with letting the courts decide? I'm sure that law enforcement and judiciary are capable enough to handle complaints about the content. They sure do when the content is copyrighted...
The paradox you're mentioning hinges on the assumption that KiwiFarms & similar are actually intolerant, or rather, their continued existence is a threat to the tolerant society/tolerance in the society. Is that really true? I don't know, but I don't think so. How can a tiny community of maybe a few thousands (or tens of thousands?) ever be any kind of threat to the tolerance of a society of hundreds of millions of people? They can be a threat to individuals, but then we're back to previous point: such threats are best dealt with by the courts and police.
One tweet from former US President - just one, maybe even any one, out of hundreds of thousands - would be a much bigger threat to tolerant society than all the KiwiFarms of the Internet taken together. That person had literally tens of millions of followers, and what he published incited riots not seen in a long time. Did KF ever cause anything close to that scale? If not, how exactly are they a threat to "tolerant society"?
Again: not a user, never seen KF before the recent KF vs. Keffars (IIRC), didn't read or see anything else on the site. I'm just reacting to you essentially saying that people should be unable to host and publish things you, personally, find offending and harmful. I don't like that content either, but I exercise my right to not look at it. If it's really harmful enough to the society to warrant "deplatforming" (or whatever you want to call it) then it's OK to bring their case to the court. The judge or jury will decide, and if they find the content actually harmful and against the law, they will issue a warrant and make the content disappear.
First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists.
Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!"
Also:
https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...
And:
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...
For people who aren't aware, the author of this piece is the founder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
The idea that the internet was at some previous point a free-for-all has never been true. Even before the web was a thing SysAdmins would regularly block NNTP newgroups from being available on their servers.
It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group.
Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance is important:
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.