411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by that exactly?
Twitter mobs can drive people to get fired, websites or companies to shut down... But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing. People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They address this: > Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for silencing vulnerable groups, but are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing problematic content online. We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
My point is this: if there are certain types of content that they deem unacceptable to host, why do they deem it acceptable to protect? I disagree that the paragraph you quoted is relevant to that. But if it is, then it doesn't seem good that their goal of eradicating cyberattacks is more important to them than actual human lives.
So, that's the reason then? It becomes hard to justify also not shutting down activists or dissidents and such. But why can't they just say "no"? They are a US company, if someone from some authoritarian regime wants them to make logical or consistent decisions or points out some "hypocrisy", they can still shrug and say "so what, we wanted to terminate that service, but we won't terminate this other nonprofit organization's service you want us to, tough luck".
Or, perhaps, they do want to have a nice relationship with those authoritarian regimes, and keep getting business from them...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't checked, but I expect the chilling effect is getting most of them to not rock the boat too hard. If you want an example for such targeting though, Liz Fong-Jones has a thread on Kiwifarms because she's outspoken and worked at Google (and thus being seen as more influential / more of a threat). The thread has also significantly slowed down after she left Google.
[flagged]
Read: to put a target on the back of anyone making an abuse report about the website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. They're attacking KiwiFarms for their agenda of trying to drive people to commit suicide.
True. Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere. Someone walks up to it and sets it on fire. Should the local fire department put it out? Assume it's not going to spread to other buildings/etc.
> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…
And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. These people who want to revoke DDoS protection for groups they don't like are essentially promoting terrorism. Why else would they fight so hard to remove DDoS protection, if not because they simply want those attacks to succeed?
in my experience most of the time it's due to:
- boredom ("gotta nuke something")
- revenge for being banned/fragged/...
- extortion ("ban this person I don't like, or else")Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide? This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to th…
Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025
It's a thoughtful document and I appreciate the time it took to write it. I think there may be a missing factor in their decision-making process. I'll quote the document itself: "We also believe that an Internet where cyberattacks are used to silence what's online is a broken Internet, no matter how much we may have empathy for the ends." That seems correct to me. It is intuitively understandable how it applies to so…
It is not "less clear" how this applies to Kiwifarms. Their TOS says they "may" remove content that: "Is otherwise illegal, harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals, or seeks to defraud the public." Kiwifarms doxxing and swatting is documented six ways from Sunday, and it's hardly just keffals.
Lots of ISPs have AUPs that would prohibit a site like KiwiFarms and the sky hasn't fallen. Why can't Cloudflare do the same?
For example that means if the Republican Party was hosting on Cloudflare and the Democrat Party disagreed with the Republican Party, they could force Cloudflare to remove the Republican Party's websites from transiting their network.
Another example is if the Washington Post and Fox news both went through Cloudflare, and Fox disagreed with the Washington Post they could force Cloudflare to remove the Washington Post.
The moment you set the precedence it becomes an expectation -- by Cloudflare remaining neutral they can't be forced into that position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by that exactly?
Twitter mobs can drive people to get fired, websites or companies to shut down... But KF literally drives people to suicide or calls in fake situations to get a SWAT team to ambush a home and in the hopes they shoot the people they are harassing. People are worried more about ending a website than they are worried about ending actual lives.
Are you actually implying that Twitter mobs haven't done all of these things too? This is obviously wrong.