211–220 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.
Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!
A. Complain online
B. Strike a blow for free speech and host the data yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
was that reputation substantial though?
Yes. I provided a link you can click on, but you can also go to the Kiwi Farms Wikipedia page that catalogs victims killed and nearly killed by Kiwi Farms harassment campaigns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
The site owner posted this rebuttal to assignment of blame for these suicides, which I find compelling. For instance, the widow of one victim decried Vice News (one source referenced in the article) for using her death to attack Kiwi Farms:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you, or do you not, feel that it is OK to doxx individuals in the manner that occurs on KiwiFarms? Why or why not?
My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs. Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info. And in the context of KF, harassment and even interacting is against the rules. Attempting to do…
There was a follow-up: Why? KiwiFarms clearly allows this doxxing to occur on a daily basis, and I know that you know this. While it's not illegal, if you don't feel that doxxing is generally OK, why do you feel that it's OK for KF users to continue to go to the extent that they do?
>More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs
Two wrongs do not make a right.
>Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info.
There is a significant difference there. A lot of the information that is publicly available is information that has to be compiled. Someone has to go to the effort to look through all of the nooks and crannies to obtain what they want. KiwiFarms saves time and compiles general publicly available data that might be "difficult" to obtain to some degree, often times alongside otherwise private photos and information that individuals might not want widely disseminated, even if they did share it. This compiled data can make it easier and more likely for bad actors to do harm than if they had to go to greater lengths to obtain that info.
The fact that massive, multi-page forums threads can exist with tons of users providing all of this data and talking about these people is enough to cause mental damage to the targets of these threads. Actions need not be direct nor illegal to be harmful, and you know just as well as I do that there have been plenty of examples of people claiming harm from the existence of such threads.
Even if the behavior is not allowed and banned, the environment is still rife to encourage it. The further you allow people to go, legal or not, the more comfortable they're going to get with the boundaries that they push. This is evidenced by the historical instances of swatting and direct harassment that have stemmed from KF despite it's own rules against it, even apparently as recently as a few weeks ago.
>My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing.
That might be the case, but arguing in support of KF here is essentially arguing in support of what I just described above.
The owner's statements: https://t.me/s/kiwifarms
I was under the impression "kiwi farms" was a dark place. The byuu story and reaction of the webmaster made me no fan. But this really changes things. Suddenly it's presumably "not just only" a twitter mob with some internet skills and resources committing vigilante justice.
This is becoming a precedent and the webmaster a martyr for the cause of internet freedom, and against Cancel Culture.
Suddenly I'm rooting for the supposed bad guy. I'm confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!
Well that kind of is important if you want to force it offline legally!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google "bathtub hrt". I found a blog post and several reddit posts talking about it, but I still have no idea what it is. Is it literally made in a bathtub?
From what I've seen, that does seem to be the accusation. I don't think it's actually possible to make hormones in a bathtub.
"Although it is theoretically possible to make a 'low-cost' production (using only a 5mL syringe, a spinning top filter, a kitchen scale and a pressure cooker), the reproducibility and the quality will not be desired."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was unequivocally not a publicly known reason. There were thousands upon thousands of “lolcows” documented in kiwifarms and the sites culture strongly emphasized not “disturbing the grazing lolcows” or “taking things IRL.” That much was obvious for me as somebody who only visited the site a few times a year out of curiosity.
That may be obvious to you . Have you tried asking some of the people documented there what they think about the site's culture, and how well it discourages harassment against them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own? If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.
I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doxxing is not illegal This is true, in some jurisdictions, in the same sense that it is true that homicide is not illegal. Doxxing with particular intent is illegal in those jurisdictions; e. g., California where Penal Code § 653.2 was adopted specifically to address harassment by doxxing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... .
There are exceptions but the point still mostly stands. Secondly, "with intent" the rules of the site explicitly forbid harassing or interacting so that's going to be quite a claim, even in those rare exceptions, to make let alone prove. Plus, a lot of what we are talking about isn't likely to qualify anyway since most of it is simply posting publicly available information, usually from the person themselves and stil…
Not really; showing that rules like that are conscious fig leaves and actually indicators of knowledge and intent is... not at all uncommon. Lots of sites taken down by law enforcement for deliberate facilitation of prostitution or human trafficking had “don’t use this platform for prostitution/trafficking” rules, too.