> 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.