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

Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

t.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#201

Post by bitwize »

mimikatz wrote: post #80

It is amazing how fast net neutrality people disappeared when this was the topic

Net neutrality is about regulating ISPs to prevent them from double-dipping by charging content providers for preferred access to their audience. It is not about giving reactionaries a platform they don't deserve. The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress. Transgressive, anything-goes edgelordism was the right answer in the 90s, when the people seeking to muzzle speech were the moral busybodies on the right. But we've learned some important lessons since then: that speech can oppress, it can harm, and it can even cast the world into a new fascism -- especially when such speech is given the swift wings of a global computer network. So when those oppressed and harmed by online speech speak up and demand that the network not carry the speech of those who seek to harm or even eradicate them -- our job is to put aside the libertarian platitudes that created the current hellscape, shut up, and listen to their experiences.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#202

Post by bigshell »

immibis wrote: post #147
bigshell wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't be able to, I don't really post anything on HN that would really tie back to my uneventful and unremarkable real life. I don't see what this has to do with the fact that if you Google someone you can find public records of them, and that you should be able to reproduce and share factual information.

Do you think everyone has a right to comment your full name and address below your comments?

Sure, print it in a book or on your blog, on a sign outside your house, or on a postcard, or with green eggs and ham.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#203

Post by dmamills »

dmatech wrote: post #198
dmamills wrote: post #37

Yet another chapter in these pathetic cry-bullies' lives. What a waste of your life to be so dedicated to "defending" a forum to meticulously document and mock the existence of people that they find distasteful. To pretend this is a crusade for free speech is laughable.

On the contrary. This whole episode is a test to see if we're ruled by codified principles or by angry people. While I loathe that site, it's pretty clear that it's an example of legal speech between willing participants. The notion that we can somehow make the world a better place by preventing speech from being heard is a very dangerous (but sadly common) notion.

> This whole episode is a test to see if we're ruled by codified principles or by angry people.

Here's the thing: No it isn't. This isn't a test, a crusade, the last dying breaths of free speech, or any other hyperbolic pearl clutching nonsense.

This is about a man having a hard time getting someone to consistently host his racist, homophobic, and downright deplorable content.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#204

Post by Big_Discourse »

bitwize wrote: post #201
mimikatz wrote: post #80

It is amazing how fast net neutrality people disappeared when this was the topic

Net neutrality is about regulating ISPs to prevent them from double-dipping by charging content providers for preferred access to their audience. It is not about giving reactionaries a platform they don't deserve. The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress. Transgressive, anything-goes edgelordism was the right answer in the 90s, when the people seeking to muzzle speech were the moral busybodies on t…

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#205

Post by byyll »

hairofadog wrote: post #197
dmatech wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For decades, we've had a pretty consistent notion of what constitutes "network abuse". It's traffic that threatens the stability of the network itself (such as spam and worm traffic). Obviously illegal stuff can be taken down by law enforcement. But stuff that's simply "bad for society" is generally given a free pass. If you don't like it, your options should be: 1. Don't visit them. 2. Sue them. 3. Get law enforceme…

I guess I don’t understand the argument that it’s ok for Kiwifarms to harass everyone in an attempt to get them taken offline, arguably criminally, but not for other people to harass Kiwifarms or their web hosts. If Kiwifarms doesn’t like it, can’t they 1. Stop patronizing Cloudflare 2. Sue Cloudflare or the people speaking out 3. Get law enforcement involved? From Cloudflare’s statement: > However, as the pressure c…

Kiwifarms is a forum, it doesn't itself harass anyone, it does as much as Facebook or Twitter do (they don't, their users might be). Facebook wasn't taken down when the Christchurch event was streamed there.

> However, as the pressure campaign escalated, so did the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site. Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site.

I don't think you've heard the other side of the story.

Although not mentioned, I am pretty sure they are referring to this post https://i.imgur.com/S1z3Po2.jpg which was taken down in under 30 minutes - as soon as the admin saw it. Making the comparison to Facebook again, the shooting stream was 36 minutes, they claim "no reports" until 12 minutes after it ended (which I doubt, 200 people were watching it live and 4000 watched it afterwards [0]) and no indication of time to reaction for a company with so much resources.

There are some theories that people that wanted the forum taken down made that post; even if that is not the case, does it mean that making a threat on any platform that allows UGC (for example, HN) and takes more than 30 minutes to get it taken down means that platform has to be taken down?

Again, this post is not talking about any web hosts, it's about an ISP. It's the same as if every bottling company was pressured into stopping to do business with you so you made your own bottling company. Then, your water spring was pressured into stopping to sell water to your bottling company because that bottling company sells bottled water to bad people. Springs are probably easier to find or buy though.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18272342/facebook-christc...

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#206

Post by byyll »

insanitybit wrote: post #139
byyll wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the case. There are a lot of hosting providers and reverse proxies that will gladly host malware and their upstream ISPs (which this thread is about, not hosting) will not block them. But what happens instead is they (either domains or IPs) get added to lists of phishing or malware enabled by default on most clients (browsers). Google has Safe Browsing and SpamHaus is probably the most popular spam list. I…

Malicious domains, users of email services for spam purposes, etc, get removed by their hosts all the time. That's simply a fact, I have made or been involved with the process as I work in security. There are some providers that are more cooperative than others, and certainly lists like Safe Browsing exists as well to deal with that + they can be more false positive tolerant. My point is that these providers make cho…

> Visiting a site, accidental or otherwise, isn't relevant.

Might not be relevant to your point but it is relevant to the discussion.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#207

Post by hairofadog »

byyll wrote: post #205
hairofadog wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I don’t understand the argument that it’s ok for Kiwifarms to harass everyone in an attempt to get them taken offline, arguably criminally, but not for other people to harass Kiwifarms or their web hosts. If Kiwifarms doesn’t like it, can’t they 1. Stop patronizing Cloudflare 2. Sue Cloudflare or the people speaking out 3. Get law enforcement involved? From Cloudflare’s statement: > However, as the pressure c…

Kiwifarms is a forum, it doesn't itself harass anyone, it does as much as Facebook or Twitter do (they don't, their users might be). Facebook wasn't taken down when the Christchurch event was streamed there. > However, as the pressure campaign escalated, so did the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site. Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out…

It sounds like your beef is with Cloudflare though, no? As the argument is that harassing people online is free speech that Cloudflare could have ignored, sued to stop, or complained to law enforcement about, had they chosen?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#208

Post by Big_Discourse »

immibis wrote: post #96
josephcsible wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I had a hosting business, I don't see why I should be required to carry their content or provide service to them. This story is about an ISP, not a hosting business. To understand why, imagine if you were instead a utility company asking why you should have to provide water or electricity to them.

Quoted post unavailable.

[flagged]

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#209

Post by slater »

Big_Discourse wrote: post #200
lbruno wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i never said/implied anything generic re: private ISPs serving KF what i implied was specific and concrete: KF should not be served by anyone you're the one marketing a generic and abstract “no duty to serve”, because you can't defend the specific and concrete actions taken by KF edit: i'll also happily make the concrete argument that cake shops shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gays/lesbians/etc, while at…

Quoted post unavailable.

Dunno if the OP edited, but their post reads "KF should not be served by anyone"

Not 'allowed'. Anyone with an ounce of decency should realize they shouldn't have anything to do with KF

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#210

Post by immibis »

bigshell wrote: post #202
immibis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think everyone has a right to comment your full name and address below your comments?

Sure, print it in a book or on your blog, on a sign outside your house, or on a postcard, or with green eggs and ham.

Mind telling me what it is so I can utilize that right?
Post reply on HN