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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#631

Post by _vvaw »

atdrummond wrote: post #609
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Do you have sources for Byuu/Near spotted alive? First I’ve heard of it.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#632

Post by chris_wot »

xupybd wrote: post #519
notatoad wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Free speech is about giving people the freedom to say things I find disgusting. It's about giving each individual the choice to listen to what ever influence they wish. It takes the the power of ideas and elevates them above physical force.

Free speech is not completely unfettered. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech that incites imminent lawless action - and that would likely cause such action - can be punished under the law.

In all likelihood this appears to be what is happening with kiwi farms. Of course, the issue is that Cloudflare can’t undertake legal enforcement, but they have a terms of use and so contractually are duly within their rights to end service to kiwifarms.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#633

Post by amachefe »

nematode_tech wrote: post #627
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Vigilantism isn't a great thing, but what choice do we have when authorities allow hate sites like Kiwifarms to stay online? After all, as Yonatan Zunger famously wrote, tolerance is not a moral precept.

In conclusion, vigilantism is fine if done against someone you dont like... cool

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#634

Post by abigail95 »

Does anyone have an example of the escalating threats and why now it's become a problem?

If the police can swat someone anywhere within an hour, what's special about these new threats that the police cannot deal with?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#635

Post by notatoad »

xupybd wrote: post #519
notatoad wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Free speech is about giving people the freedom to say things I find disgusting. It's about giving each individual the choice to listen to what ever influence they wish. It takes the the power of ideas and elevates them above physical force.

but "giving the individual the choice to listen to whatever influence they wish" means that when somebody uses the threat of physical violence to silence one of those influences, anybody who stands up for free speech must push back against that. everybody deserves to have their say, except those who would seek to silence others.

defending the silencers is incompatible with free speech.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#636

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#637

Post by coldacid »

dart200 wrote: post #432
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…

how do you know it wasn't just trolls trying to get KF taken down?

More importantly, does he even care if that were the case? (All signs point to no.)

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#638

Post by AussieWog93 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #599
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…

What specifically makes their victims 'weirdos' and why do you feel the need to comment that you get off to 'watching people do fucked up shit for internet clout' That's exactly what you are doing right now. They target trans women like Lizzy Waite and Clara Sorrenti. And gay children ... What is so weird about kids who need support from the Trevor Project hotline? Being queer is not a mental illness.

>What specifically makes their victims 'weirdos'

The site was set up to target Chris Chan in particular, but later shifted to "lolcows" in general - ie people that continue to give the bullies the bizarre reactions that they're looking for. They don't exclusively target trans people, nor do they even go to trans spaces looking for people to insult. After all, the average trans person would just block them and move on with their life and that makes for a boring thread.

>why do you feel the need to comment that you get off to 'watching people do fucked up shit for internet clout'

Because I'm on HN, and it's more important here to show that you know what you're talking about rather than show that you're a good, law-abiding citizen. If you seriously can't understand why people enjoy looking at trainwrecks, you need to speak to more people.

>They target trans women like Lizzy Waite and Clara Sorrenti.

I don't know the Lizzy Waite saga, but Clara Sorrenti specifically had that whole Catboy Ranch thing going on, plus the constant drama with other streamers and just a general behavioural pattern of always feeding the trolls.

>What is so weird about kids who need support from the Trevor Project hotline?

Yep, that shouldn't have happened. (But then again, neither should anything else on this site...)

>Being queer is not a mental illness.

Yes?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#639

Post by assetlabel »

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…

Did blocking the content save anybody's life? If so, how? If you don't know, can you even articulate a theory in which blocking content could save a life imminently threatened?

I don't dispute that a life was threatened and murder may have been imminent, I'm taking that for granted. I just don't understand how this action could have any effect upon that course of events. Murder is a physical-world thing, not an online content thing.

Further explanation would be appreciated.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#640

Post by wyager »

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…

> the risk created by the content

What risk? Can you please share details? From my perspective, it seems like this is a thin excuse, and there was not actually a credible risk that you were mitigating.

Post reply on HN