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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#861

Post by [deleted] »

jmyeet wrote: post #353
Icathian wrote: post #40

There were no good choices for Cloudflare here, and everyone across the internet who jams their fingers in their ears and shouts their position repeatedly is just contributing to the problem. Private companies should not be the de facto moderators of free speech in our society. They are forced into that position by woefully inadequate governance by legal authorities operating multiple decades behind the current lands…

> There were no good choices for Cloudflare here ... I couldn't disagree more. Just cut off sites for organized harassment and nazis immediately. If you're able to, hand over any archives you have to law enforcement. Don't even talk about it . Just let such sites disappear one day. Don't give them any more attention. Could you be breaching a contract? Maybe. But who cares? You think the KF owners are going to reveal…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#862

Post by rejectfinite »

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.

>Why do browser makers like Mozilla not put Kiwifarms and other hate sites on their "safe browsing" denylists when these sites are obviously unsafe for marginalized people?

Those lists are for malware. Not for site content. You have grossly misunderstood the function of those lists.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#863

Post by hackerlight »

BrainVirus wrote: post #589
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…

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?

No post body was provided.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#864

Post by yieldcrv »

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…

Twitter mob wants more

I have no idea why and this piecemeal information leak looks bad

You’re just going to wind up like Facebook where their content moderation completely missed the fanning of genocide in Myanmar and that actual outcome, all the “immediate threats” not just one person getting doxxed

Rule of law? I have no clue what distinction you’re making, as it is neither a legal free speech or rule of law issue. Leave the communication to the lawyers?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#865

Post by unraveller »

_vvaw wrote: post #731
_vvaw wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the actual threat? Was it posted on Kiwi Farms, or transmitted via another channel?

Kiwi Farms is back on an alternate domain. Posters in the Keffals thread believe the fake bomb threat was to blame for Cloudflare’s reaction. The account which made the post barely had any other activity on the site. The post itself was removed quickly by moderators. If it’s true that an obvious fake bomb threat which was swiftly removed was the cause for this action, Cloudflare has some hard explaining to do to its…

The bomb threat could have originated from a disgruntled cloudflare employee on cloudflare network/hardware, I wonder then if they'd take themselves down? Probably not, different strokes for different folks.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#866

Post by andrepd »

Cyberdog wrote: post #558
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…

> 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 ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat. This is the logic of vigilantes. I'm not saying what you have done is on the same leve…

We've come to a place where apparently not hosting a forum with the purpose to make life hell for people they don't like (including through illegal means) is vigilantism.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#867

Post by hackerlight »

isitmadeofglass wrote: post #803
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#868

Post by patrec »

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…

> could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. > Encourage you when these issues arise to think of them in the rule of law context

To get this straight: your position is that this is not about free speech because something clearly illegal happened and you acted purely to expedite matters since law enforcement was too slow to react and there was material danger.

So you are then tying your reputation to there being eventual legal consequences for what happened in recent days on Kiwi Farms?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#869

Post by [deleted] »

patrec wrote: post #868
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…

> could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. > Encourage you when these issues arise to think of them in the rule of law context To get this straight: your position is that this is not about free speech because something clearly illegal happened and you acted purely to expedite matters since law enforcement was too slow to react and there was material danger. So you are…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#870

Post by andrepd »

scifibestfi wrote: post #771
causality0 wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Post the screenshot then. Show us what changed between when CF said "KF is acting within the bounds of the law and will remain online" and today. Refusing service to customers you find contemptible is completely reasonable. Continuing to service customers out of a sense…

In fact freedom of expression is central to protecting the vulnerable. Civil rights were enabled by free speech.

Yes, the vulnerable here being, of course, the people who expressed non-cis gender identity online and were harassed and bullied into shutting up or (preferably) killing themselves, not the forum orchestrating these hunts.
Post reply on HN