Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only at a very superficial level.
like Stalin and Hitler
Yes, that would be one such example of superficial, high-school level analysis - "they both killed people".
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phone companies already ban spam customers that make thousands of phone calls
That's according to volume of calls, not content, so I would assume it's covered by different legal theory.
Banning based on complaints by recipients of the calls is also different from banning based on some sort of automated monitoring without any complaints.
Kiwifarms generated complaints.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
kiwifarms admin admitted to this too. he says that he seeks out mentally vulnerable people to harass because they make funny reactions when tormented. he calls them "lolcows". the first victim of the site was a severely autistic person. kiwifarms was originally called "CWCki Forums" after the first victim's initials
> kiwifarms admin admitted to this too. I have a hard time finding that, could you link me to it/a screenshot of it?
It's on the kiwifarms homepage
>Lolcows are people with eccentric behavior who can be "milked" for entertainment.
the "milking" is harassment
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#914Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because the police have really failed to enforce existing laws that people have to resort to leaning on ISPs and payment processors to do it.
Which is why society needs to turn ISPs into non-discriminating common carriers of information. Now nobody will be able to "resort" to leaning on them anymore.
[flagged]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree. If a corporation has civil rights, they're akin to being a person/entity in which those rights are guaranteed aka citizenship. Some might argue that America is a "corporatocracy" for this very reason.
No, you’ve got weird ideas about citizenship and civil rights if you think that’s the case. Plenty of rights are conferred by merely being within the borders of a country, regardless of citizenship status. You can be a tourist or even an illegal immigrant in the US and have the right to habeas corpus or the right of non-self-incrimination, for example. Talking about elevating corporations to be on par with citizens i…
You can think these ideas are weird, they're not mine, I think a corporation having civil rights is weird too. The infamous line "corporations are people" comes from American politicians, so as weird as it may be, the government itself is inferring it and a court is justifying it as the law of the land.
A key tenet of fascism is protecting corporate interest and power... but okay.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the EFF explicitly calls out the government for failing to enforce existing laws which would have shut down Kiwifarms Eh, maybe, but don't most of these laws mostly fail to work across international borders anyway? I mean, I haven't seen many cryptolocker authors appearing before US courts. And wikileaks remains online despite the best efforts of US authorities. Surely anything that could shut down or block kiwifar…
The operator of the kiwifarms is himself a US citizen with a US business. It is an advertised fact that if a police force comes after or shuts him down with a legal reason, it will cease to exist and he himself has stated he wouldn't operate it out of any other country than the US. Pirate bay and sci-hub get affected by copyright law more than anything else and, to the best of my knowledge, kiwifarms is protected by…
>and has always complied with legitimate takedown requests.
Then why do people who issue takedown requests get plastered all over the site and harassed?
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#917Earlier quoted context omitted.
So not knowing either company, is IncogNet and CrunchBits related companies in some way? I ask because the article just talks about Crunchbits, which I didn't know about. I tried to look looking up CrunchBits, but that's not really possible on Bing based search engines. There are a few links to reviews, but the Crunchbits website seems to have scrubbed from Bing.
[flagged]
While it's certainly a comical thought to imagine a business opening their doors and waiting years to onboard a single customer, that an upstream swiftly cancels on their behalf, it's nothing more than a far-fetched story that you're telling. Do you genuinely believe that both of these businesses exist to support a single customer?
Abuse complaints have to be valid. Submitting opinion pieces to our inbox is good reading, but beyond that, relatively pointless without links to actual unlawful content. I can't speak on behalf of Crunchbits since we simply lease hardware from them, but they likely subscribe to the same policy that most service providers do.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
You host death threats and leaked PII, and the forum owner explicitly encourages his followers to harass specific people he has a personal grudge against. He names entire sections of his forums after his victims and encourages people to post about his victims. You're lying. He's not running a neutral operation and neither are you. The forum doxes employees of their hosting providers. Even Russian hosters terminated k…
How come no one ever posts any links to any of this (or at least archives of said links), whenever this site is discussed? Instead we get DailyDot and Vice articles, or a wikipedia entry quoting those articles, and little else. If the site is such a clear and present danger to public safety, why is the proof to that effect never provided?
Because it's linking to victims dox which would get your account banned on any reasonable website. The homepage is kiwifarms.st currently, and if you're on the fence I would encourage you to check it out for yourself and ask yourself if this is OK, and if a provider should be forced against their will to support this.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's right. Authoritarian censors found an exploit. They couldn't use the government to clamp down on civil liberties because of the pesky constitution, so they invaded the administrative layer of big tech. It's not the engineers who built the web and these companies with Silicon Valley ideals. They were never intended to be used this way and are secretly horrified. > play moral police at the moment Moral fashion p…
From what I understand re twitter and others, it's the government that found a loophole. They used big tech to censor according to their agenda. The administrative class, while I agree probably has been invaded in some sense, is really just risk aversion run amok, like it always it, and will self organize to do what it can to minimize controversy.
Might as well have written this post with (((they))) given how conspiratorial it is
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#920I would encourage those interested to read up on the individual behind the ISP harassment campaign and what might actually be motivating them to do it. That it's being done to protect trans people is highly disingenuous.
Their personal information is plastered all over Kiwifarms so it's pretty easy to find.