Like Baked Alaska (IRL Streamer and convicted Jan 6. participant), or Nick Fuentes (most prominent gen z white nationalist)? The people they cover are YouTubers and Twitch streamers with thousands or even millions of followers. Some of them are also multimillionaires. These are not struggling people. And besides documenting the more pedestrian cases of streamers grifting and sex-pesting, there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere (or at least nowhere near to the extent), such as the million pity/trillion tears monkey hate stuff (which incidentally, YouTube and FB enable, and of which people like you seem unaware or unconcerned).
> And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy
That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.
> Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take
If you really believed this nonsense, you'd be going after Discord, Signal, etc--apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment, and which will remain running irrespective of KF's fate.
See: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-...
> That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.
Zero interest. You don't have eat white lead to know it will give you cancer.
> there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere
There's a word for this: stalking. Many of these "social phenomena" are people, and like I said, ones who suffer with mental illness. You're quite literally advocating for, and enabling real-world stalking when you endorse write-ups about these sorts of people.
> apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment
Used for, vs created to enable. There's a difference you're either ignoring or willfully blind to here.
KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and others endorsing its erasure (despite it not breaking any law) would know this (and perhaps secretly do) if you actually lurked there for a while instead of just credulously accepting its critics' characterization. It's also strange how the site is supposedly such a hive of doxxers, harassers, etc., yet nothing seems to happen to the journalists and tech people organizing against it.
I think the real reason it's in hot water is precisely because they just passively, permanently document so much, some of which some people with money and influence don't want documented. Maybe they documented something someone (some billionaire?) secretly doesn't want out there?