Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blocking Kiwifarms

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#581

Post by dillondoyle »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #499
initplus wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kiwifarms should have been dealt with by the traditional legal system years ago. It is honestly shocking to me that the operator has never been charged. The site has been engaging in mass harassment for years and is responsible for multiple suicides. When the legal system fails, people turn to vigilante justice, and we get this mess instead. People feel so strongly that Kiwifarms should be taken offline that they eng…

> and is responsible for multiple suicides. I've suffered some cases of extreme, acute depression in my life, and I was lucky that I had some support that prevented my depression from killing me. That said, I'm really uncomfortable with the language that somebody else can be, as you put it, "responsible" for someone's suicide. One of the things that is really driven home in therapy for depression (that is, after you'…

The standard shouldn't be whether someone is struggling with mental health.

It's whether or not that person would be alive today if it weren't for this targeted violence

As someone pointed out below people have been found liable for (at a minimum)contributing to someone's suicide.

Victims have specifically wrote this in a suicide note. And these sick people follow up on their deceased FB profiles commenting and basically bragging about what they've done.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#582

Post by [deleted] »

garaetjjte wrote: post #387

This has nothing to do with Kiwifarms, it's just same story all over again. It happened before and I bet it will happen again. 1. Some awful website uses Cloudflare. 2. Something ignites outrage that Cloudflare is protecting that awful website. 3. Cloudflare initially refuses to take it down, arguing that they are neutral infrastructure providers. 4. Twitter-amplified outrage keeps growing 5. Cloudflare caves in and…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#583

Post by systemvoltage »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

Will you also ban violent threats from the left to Andy Ngo? He has been thoroughly documenting it. And published a NYT bestseller “Unmasked”, a written account of how violence from the extreme left is being ignored.

I’d like to see equal treatment, that’s the least worst option.

I want extreme objectivity at the highest level.

Edit: I’m questioning OBJECTIVITY and Andy Ngo is just a fucking example. Find some hypothetical antifa forum, the point is about standards.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#584

Post by tete »

Ralo wrote: post #500
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

I remember many years ago with lulzsec, where cloudflare refused to shutdown their services. Whether what they did was moral or not, it was a still a crime and I imagine it was because they agreed with the message.

To the best of my knowledge nobody's life was threatened or endangered.

I'd compare it to a website shutting down someone's account because they send a meme where they might not have the rights, which is illegal, which also isn't usually resulting in a ban.

Now where you draw the line is a philosophical question.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#585

Post by joecool1029 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #562
joecool1029 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Our decision today Your decision today. You took ownership before for the arbitrary decisions to remove DS and 8Chan, take ownership now and do not try to backpedal. You are Cloudflare's leader. >That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat. You failed to take ownership of this issue…

My guess is that the people who pressured CF to take down kiwifarms knew about this, and knew that they had bowed to public pressure before and removed sites. There was a lot of compromising and embarrassing information on KF about the activist who started this campaign (a streamer called Keffals). It looks like the whole feud actually started when Keffals wanted to take down this site to remove the embarrassing info…

>My guess is that the people who pressured CF to take down kiwifarms knew about this, and knew that they had bowed to public pressure before and removed sites.

It doesn't really change the situation. CF isn't a public utility, there are no sorts of 'due process' that they need to follow on cases like this, especially in extraordinary circumstances. Advertisers pull campaigns all the time due to public perception changing.

My critique isn't on Mr. Prince deciding to keep KF up or not, it's specifically on his trying to walk away from the responsibility of making a choice either way. If he does not like the unwanted attention received from having to make these difficult choices nobody is forcing him to be in that position where he's expected to.

Similarly, if KF's owner doesn't want to get banned from using companies services they can work on their moderation and public perception.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#586

Post by atemerev »

kypro wrote: post #530

It always starts as a one off, "this was a special circumstance" type thing. I feel like I've read this post thousand times before at this point. I remember when it "just Alex Jones" getting deplatformed from social media. And it had to be done - he was just too dangerous! But then it expanded to a few more people, and from there a few more. And within the span of just a few years Twitter had gone from Alex Jones to…

Twitter has the right to ban anyone for violating their ToS, including the (thankfully, ex) president of the United States. I don’t see any problem with that. You don’t have a _right_ to a space to promote your ideas from a private company, this is not how free speech works.

And no, the right to ban someone does not translate to an obligation.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#587

Post by [deleted] »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #486

I think a lot of people in the comments don't understand what Kiwifarms is. I say this as someone who occasionally browses there and gets some (admittedly sick) enjoyment from it: the main draw of the website is a place for people to get together and bully mentally ill "weirdos". It's not just about people posting offensive shit in their own little corner of the internet - what happens there spreads out, by design, i…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#588

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway932022 wrote: post #250

The admin of kiwifarms has posted the following in response: >I am so full of hate for this situation. I try to write down my thoughts and I find myself unable to focus on one thing I hate the most. The person committing crimes to frame my community, or the sex pest who groom little boys, or the journalists who outright lie, or the corporate cowardice responsibility for the fragile state of the Internet. >It is all s…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#589

Post by BrainVirus »

notatoad wrote: post #451
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

>rather than free speech i encourage anybody who is calls themselves a "free speech advocate" to consider what kiwifarms has been doing to "free speech". their intimidation campaigns have been doing a lot more to harm the cause of free speech than this decision by cloudflare is. if you really believe in free speech, you understand that trans people deserve free speech too, and kiwifarms harrasment campaigns have been…

Why should I take this argument on good faith when literally this same argument has been repeatedly used in attempts to deplatform comedians, popular politicians, writers, journalists and tons of ordinary people?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#590

Post by Cyberdog »

cosmodisk wrote: post #72

Never heard of kiwifarms before but after having a quick read on it, I don't see any reasons why any provider of any sorts would deal with them. Not sure how screwed up in their heads people need to be to engage in this kind of shit.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN