> 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.