> So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no?

You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims?

> Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.

I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down.

) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.

> You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear".

Sorry, I can't edit the original comment anymore. But thanks for pointing that out!

> However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it.

Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.

> Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.

This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.

> My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples...

I, for one, take CloudFlare at their word here. Do you not?

Matthew Prince received a massive backlash for this decision and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. As mentioned, I believe it was merely a convenient excuse to justify backtracking on his definitive promise less than 48 hours later.

If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?

> and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had.

Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind?

My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.

Of course it's possible, though without evidence it's baseless speculation. I'm pretty sure the Kiwi Farms is protected by section 230, so unless the owner was personally involved in these threats to life (which I doubt) what reason would there be to keep them in the dark?

Only Matthew Prince can shed light on the truth, but if he hasn't by now I doubt he ever will.

The owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with. Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.

> The owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with.

That's an interesting legal theory.

> Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.

An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.

>An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.

Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true

> Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true

My personal feelings are irrelevant. I judge claims based on the veracity of their evidence, as should anyone else.

If I recall correctly those posts were all from new accounts, and were largely removed by moderators.

I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden.

The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this.

Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).

Notably, the infamous picture taken outside of Keffals' alleged residence in Ireland was posted *on 4chan* by someone claiming to be a member of Kiwi Farms.

If they were actually a member of Kiwi Farms, why didn't they post it on the forums? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that they weren't, and they couldn't because KF had closed new user sign ups prior to that.

Now imagine if HN admins created a section explicitly purposed for posting Joe Biden's personal family information and stalking his family. That's what Kiwifarms actually is towards its victims.

Go look at the front page of the site. There is a section named "lolcow cults" and 4 major forum sections created by the admins naming specific victims by name. I don't think I can even link to it without getting my HN account banned.

Well, yes; I'm saying it's pretty or good. But that doesn't mean everything said about it is true, either.

Just look at the site and stick to the facts