Chris Chan has been a notorious and divisive figure online long before the existence of the Kiwi Farms. They are arguably one of the most well-known Internet personalities.

Merely referring to them as "a trans woman" throws away a massive amount of context why Kiwi Farms (and many other sites) seems so obsessed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs

Also, what does labeling the person as trans (or anything else) have to do with harassment?

These threads exist. They're easy to find. I've seen them before and they're absolutely abhorrent.

Another commenter said they checked themselves

> Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327204

> Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327642

Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else. I really wish I could understand the mentality of thinking otherwise. Are you really so hung up on "thinking for yourself" that you automatically assume anything said by the mainstream media is a lie? Skepticism is great and I highly encourage it, but automatic knee-jerk rejection is not skepticism, it's basically setting you up for falling for reverse psychology. Just because the mainstream media says one thing while fringe reporters say something else does not automatically mean the mainstream is lying.

Two notes:

1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.

2. "Does more than zero research" is a very high bar that few meet. The number of people I've found on the internet who cite primary sources, government stats/papers and scientific papers is less than 0% to the nearest tenth of a percent. While its true that sometimes research can take half an hour or more, so often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).

Ideally everyone would do research and cite real sources, in practice less than one in a thousand do.

There's a difference between an honest archive of potentially reprehensible things that might motivate someone to harass someone and a site which actively promotes harassment. Example, _Something Awful_ (at least back in the day).

Would KF be better, in your mind, if the threads contained links to archive sites whose archives contained the doxxing information, but they didn't repost it on KF? Separate the comments from the data?

> often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).

The claim is that the police/courts/government are actively ignoring sex-trafficking and child sex when they perceive there to be a racial group of perpetrators, so one would expect the stats on prosecutions to be misleading. It's not about which race is more likely to commit a crime in Britain, but which races are potentially being "allowed" to and thus which victims are unlikely to be helped. The claim is not that Muslims or Pakistanis are more rapey than other people, just that they're less likely to be prosecuted in Britain's current legal climate.

There is a comment by a police officer "The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found a chief inspector told a missing child’s father that Rotherham “would erupt” if it knew that multiple Asian gangs were sexually abusing children" which indicates a blindness towards certain groups, and because the issue is police perception of their ability to prosecute without being called racist, that chief inspector's view is relevant to likelihood of investigation and arrest and therefore prosecution.

A UK parliament study on the issue deliberately clouds the issue by saying "The vast majority of convicted child-sex offenders in the UK are single White men", which shouldn't surprising in a country where the majority is white. This misses the claim of unequal police attention though, which is the real issue.

I don't think you researched the actual claims of the people who brought that up and thus haven't disproven it.

That's only your opinion. What OP says about KF is still correct.

No, it really isn't.

> Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for [doxxing] is to condone harassment of that individual. Any claims otherwise are completely bad faith and bullshit. Nobody believes you. Stop claiming "Oh, but this information is publicly available!"

Yes, I acknowledge it's all public, but that doesn't explain why you would want to aggregate that information and post it in a public forum and make it easier to acquire. What purpose does it achieve?

I do not recall seeing those in the threads I looked at (which all have an opening post collecting information about the individual).

Can you confirm what proportion, if any, of main posts had that info? Can you also confirm that KF does not have a policy of removing that info?

I can't access kiwifarms at the moment to check, but I strongly suspect that information is in obscure posts by individuals and their "community" as a whole does not condone it and it is removed where obvious.

Primary sources analysed either a good methodology are by far the best way to learn about a subject.