I think that is a fair line of reasoning.

Most online forums have rules against doxing. Then again, most online forums have problems with anonymous users making false claims.

Is wikipedia likewise complicit for publishing articles on nefarious topics? How about linking to macdonalds.com, who is surely complicit in more deaths than kiwifarms?

Sure, it's also complicit, but the cost-benefit analysis favors Wikipedia, whereas KF has a much higher bar of utlity to clear because it's publishing information that would be trivial to use to hurt specific individuals. What value could KF provide that's worth that pain? I don't think there's any.

> it's publishing information that would be trivial to use to hurt specific individuals

But so do a lot of organizations. It's legal for kiwifarms' users and it's legal for the phone company, the federal election commission and for my city government too.

> What value could KF provide that's worth that pain? I don't think there's any.

What pain, exactly though? People claim that there have been suicides, but the claims seem dubious at best. If you call someone out for misappropriating funds and they commit suicide, is that on you?

What value? Many reporters (and regular humans) use kiwifarms to get a sense of the history, backstories and relationships of online figures and groups.

By that logic, if someone uses a phone book to harass you via telephone, the phone company is liable.

Or, for a more up-to-date example, if someone uses a DNS provider to find a server's IP address and do a DDOS attack against it (as is constantly happening to KF), the DNS provider would be liable.

The phone book and DNS provider are different because they don't say why one would want to harass those people, whereas on KF that information is provided along with their contact info.