451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
8chan had the whole mass shooter thing. Comparing the two websites is very hyperbolic.
KF actively pushes people to commit suicide. People have died because of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this in fact the case? Of course it is being claimed, but I always perceived that KF's nastiness was relatively self-contained, e.g. when someone encourages suicide, it's performative to other Farmers, rather than reaching out to a potential victim or their loved ones. All bark, no bite, and caged.
Wikipedia has information on 3 suicides related to KiwiFarms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Suicides_of_harassm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. No, it's not. Not everything that's bad is terrorism. Terrorism is specifically about using violence. Don't water down terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
You shouldn't make new accounts for this sort of thing you know - cowards who hide from perfectly legal doxxing and "investigative journalism" in defense of such "harmless" actions come across as sus. Why should you be ashamed of your opinion - you are entitled to free speech right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was a platform for doxing and harassment a tenet of liberalism? "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins".
It wasn’t. That it would be dealt with by the courts if it broke the law — that was
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is Cloudflare a government service? Do local fire departments remove copyright infringers' sheds?
> Let's say KiwiFarms was entirely hosted/located in a shed in the middle of nowhere.
A shed in the middle of nowhere, so let us suppose the nearest government supported fire department is a two hour drive away, and so KF hires a private for-profit firefighting company. With that modification to patmcc's comment, what is your response now?
>We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Unless, of course, you are an _enabler_ of such attacks. This is where CF's hypocrisy shines through. instant-stresser.com str3ssed.co freestresser.co metastresser.com (dozens more) These are all sites hosted with CF DNS, who provide services that are literally the opposite of free speech -- they are in the business of _suppressing…
So, the claim is that Cloudflare is acting like the window glass shop that drums up business by running around smashing windows at night? That's quite the claim. Here's a recent report on a DDoS-for-hire outfit that was criminally charged and convicted, related to downthem.org and ampnode.org https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/06/ddos-for-hire... Interestingly, the affidavit in that case does note that Cloud…
Seems to be the case,
> The FBI’s Anchorage Field Office and its Los Angeles-based Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit investigated this matter. [...] Cloudflare, Inc. [...] assisted this investigation.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/illinois-man-sentenced-...
Edit: And for anyone looking for the affadvit reference by parent, I believe they mean this: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.73...
Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…
> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.
Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…
> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.
Let me take a stab in the dark: you think "free speech" refers only to the United States' First Amendment, and not a universal principle, which:
* according to Wikipedia, is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction"
* or, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, we have a justice system based on what we agreed as a society. The rule of law. If you want to prohibit speech to white supremacists, fine, let’s pass a law and if it doesn’t hold constitutional muster, go ahead convince everyone to amend the constitution. But since our founding fathers made this process difficult on purpose, let’s take a different approach: that’s what social justice is. It is anti-democrati…
This appears to be describing a parallel universe. The justice system we have in America today is arcane, strongly favors monied interests, is subject to perverse incentives ("tough on crime" DAs, lack of interest in pursuing crimes against groups without institutional power), frequently produces results that go against the common understanding of what is just, and is generally inaccessible to the most vulnerable peo…
The people elect representatives to pass and/or change laws.
What you're saying is we should disregard voting because you know best - an argument famously supported by every genocidal maniac in the 20th century.