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

141–150 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#141

Post by bigshell »

geofft wrote: post #131
bigshell wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you visited this website? I have. I found what I assume to be doxes which you have to log in to the website if you'd like to view, but that's factual information, why is the statement of factual information so heinous that this website must be taken off the internet? I saw some pretty mean things, but nobody was saying that you should go say these things on other people's profiles, they just kept these mean thin…

In general "factual information" is not a defense to a whole bunch of things that society generally recognizes as not protected by free speech (the broad concept, not solely the legal right). I cannot claim to be lawyer and provide you with legal advice, even if that legal advice is correct. I cannot redistribute copies of Taylor Swift's latest album, even if (perhaps especially if) it is a faithful copy. I cannot ma…

Addresses aren't copyrighted, and workplace health and safety and discrimination or doctor patient confidentiality don't really fall under this because this information like addresses was already public. And if this information becomes public, whether illegally or legally, you're allowed to republish it. Data breaches get shared all the time and that's legal to do because it's considered public information. You are allowed to publish books and news articles with names and addresses in them, or your legal opinions even if you haven't passed the bar exam (also it's worth noting that this is an American idea) and that's not illegal, so why not websites?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#142

Post by threatofrain »

josephcsible wrote: post #2

This is why arguments justifying censorship by saying "just host it yourself then" are wrong. Whenever you take over one level in the stack, the next level down will just censor you instead.

One might apply this argument to HN, where mods can silently ban people so that those who are banned don't realize. I mean, are you going to create your own HN? It doesn't matter if creating HN is easier than creating an ISP if the task is practically unsurmountable.

Isn't the issue here freedom of association? When in conflict with freedom of speech, which is more important, and why?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#146

Post by soundnote »

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#147

Post by immibis »

bigshell wrote: post #128
immibis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how would I get from "bigshell" to your full name and company name?

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?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#148

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #90
zo1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hosting anything on your home connections is already a ToS violation on probably 99.999% of ISPs out there. No need to be Kiwifarms to be kicked off. It's also common from what I heard for them to block incoming HTTP ports entirely.

Yes, that would have to be changed by legislation requiring a utility to not do that.

First we'd need legislation to decide ISPs are actually utilities.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#149

Post by soundnote »

lbruno wrote: post #39

i'm enjoying the right-leaning comments here -- it's not censorship, it's being censured which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it with examples which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured

> which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it

> with examples

> which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured

Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse? If we want to censor Kiwifarms, we should justify it as heinously evil and an active threat to people's lives or something. Many articles claim they are, but at least according to other posters here end up being a case of circular citations with little in the way of actual examples of Kiwifarms content that'd convince people that maybe it's enough of a pile of garbage to toss out of society.

I know it's definitely not a pleasant place - a friend recently dug out some posts from there on what archives he managed to find, and said it was basically a sneer club site. But a sneer club in a small godforsaken corner of the net is pretty far from actively harassing people to suicide.

Made more complicated by keffals, as far as I know, basically being a similar grade of asshole.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#150

Post by dragonwriter »

soundnote wrote: post #149
lbruno wrote: post #39

i'm enjoying the right-leaning comments here -- it's not censorship, it's being censured which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it with examples which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured

> which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it > with examples > which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse? If we want to censor Kiwifarms, we should justify it as heinously evil an…

> Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse?

No.

> If we want to censor Kiwifarms

That’s not the debate, we aren’t doing that. We are debating the propriety of another party exercising their free speech rights to not relay Kiwifarms speech.

Post reply on HN