Kiwifarms makes shell companies so the hosting provider is a confederate and the only way to terminate service is to go over their head and complain to the upstream. You can even see "their hosting provider" posting weird political astroturfing in this thread.

Spammers do this trick all the time to buy some plausible deniability.

> Kiwifarms makes shell companies

Can you provide examples of shell companies they've used? As far as I'm aware, Kiwi Farms only had a single LLC which is based in the US.

You know full well the series of companies Kiwifarms has gone through, because you are an obvious Kiwifarms user astroturfing this thread. I won't waste time on your bad faith questions.

There isn't a single comment I've seen you make in this thread which even vaguely qualifies as being in good faith.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> You know full well the series of companies Kiwifarms has gone through, because you are an obvious Kiwifarms user astroturfing this thread. I won't waste time on your bad faith questions.

I am not, nor have I ever, been a member of the Kiwi Farms. I simply do not believe it is just that public pressure basic on dubious or false claims can completely kick a website off the Internet.

Regardless, it's clear by your response that you are operating in bad faith.

Here's a thread where your admin openly speculates about how to bypass financial restrictions via shell companies because banks won't do business with him and it's harming his business model of taking donations to support harassment campaigns for entertainment.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/plan-in-motion-banking-and-fedn...

You already know about this activity, but you support it.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of flamewar comments too, and not just in this thread. Can you please not? As I explained to the other user above, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

Sorry, dang. Sometimes the undertow pulls you in.

You posted 89 comments in this thread—that is over the top. We're not here for speedrage flamewars. We're here for thoughtful, curious, respectful conversation. If you can't do that or don't want to, please don't post until you do. The idea on HN is to value quality over quantity—regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are. I realize several other commenters are also on the wrong side of this tradeoff, but your account has been standing out in this respect.

You have also been repeatedly crossing into flamewar and in some cases egregiously breaking the site guidelines, as you did here.

We ban accounts that post like this, regardless of how right they are or feel they are. If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not use HN primarily for flamewar and/or ideological battle, we'd appreciate it. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

HN is moderated, but I cannot imagine many opinions that really would be outright banned or suppressed. It has strong requirements to the form, but not necessarily the content of the message itself. That is in essence not the topic people complain about, otherwise they probably wouldn't post.

I am a free speech absolutist though, I tend to like the term too because I believe its intended derisiveness is mostly impotent. Overall I believe trying to enforce hate speech laws is fundamentally flawed. I think people should be free to express acceptance as they should be able to express rejections.

Quite a lot of opinions get suppressed over here, and rightly so. You can see a lot of flagged comments in hot threads.

I grew up with unrestricted access to internet as a child, browsed a lot of forums, and most of them were always heavily moderated as well. The thing is, the majority of audience (read-only people) don’t want to see extremely stupid content (subjective). Thus the mods, host and etc. have to play the balancing game. HN is one of those places, and they’re doing a terrific job, in my opinion.

I’m not sure how to put it into words, but Internet is not the same as public free speech. Anonymity, physical distance, not seeing others’ faces contribute to the way people talk. I completely support the former kind, but not the latter. It just becomes a breeding ground for a lot of naive people who start thinking that’s tolerable to act that way in real world too (can’t cite any sources, just observations from my nephews and others kids I know). We like to tout how everyone forms their own opinions, but I’m a heavy believer of the “nurture” side of the debate. If you get sucked into one corner of the Internet, you will start hating the other corner, and that’s basically your nurturing. I guess, the major question is, should we keep fostering this behaviour or not? And I don’t know the answer, as there isn’t “one right corner” most of the time. The best I can do is to support the crackdown on extremely obvious shitty behaviour knowing that’s against the free speech ethos.

I've not done a thorough analysis but it seems like most flagging of posters/comments here seems to be done on the basis of conduct rather than opinion. And that's a different matter.

The thought experiment is always; if this person behaved the same way but had a different viewpoint - would they still be banned/flagged/arrested? Mostly I think it's a yes here, which is a good thing.

The problem with a lot of internet posters is they refuse to accept a distinction between conduct and opinion. If you're abusive to everyone and then get banned, it's not because they couldn't handle your radical opinions, it's because you were being a dick.

> It has strong requirements to the form, but not necessarily the content of the message itself.

This is provably false.

If I write a very formal message asking for some horrible thing to be done to group X, the message will be removed as soon as HN mods see it.

Direct threats are not free speech.

Moderation and censorship are two very different things.

Also, trusting the government is silly. It has a lot of opportunities to call any speech harmful to state policies as 'hate speech', 'misinformation', etc. - and before long you could find your country turned into a authoritarian failed state like Russia.

Right. To make it explicit: Moderation is when you take down material because the recipient doesn't want to see it.

Censorship is when you take down content because you don't want the recipient to see it, regardless of how the recipient feels about it.

If people think censorship is sometimes justified, they should argue that, and not muddle the picture with moderation.

I'm on the same page, and I think the title could have been better because it overlooks the following sentence, which is in my opinion the most effective argument against HE:

> Tier 1 ISPs don’t have the ability or the incentive to build content evaluation teams that are even as effective as those of the giant platforms who know far more about their end users and yet still engage in harmful censorship.

HE should not do the "moderation" not because those sites are okay, but because HE can't do the effective moderation. The current title doesn't suggest that the subject ("ISPs") is very important.