Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

Post by sinity » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:17 PM UTC

hnusersarelame wrote: post #86

FeepingCreature wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If Kiwifarms is acting illegally, sue them in court. If there are no laws, lobby to make them. ISPs are not police, elected representatives or courts; they shouldn't be allowed to usurp that role.

> In March 2019, Kiwi Farms republished both the livestream and the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. Shortly after, website owner Joshua Moon publicly denied a request by New Zealand Police to voluntarily hand over all data on posts about the shooting, including the email and IP addresses of posters. Moon responded aggressively and mockingly, calling New Zealand…

Post by icycombative » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:34 PM UTC

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.

Post by lbruno » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #156

api wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right supports the right of private businesses to decide who to serve unless they are kicking out right wingers in which case we need government intervention to guarantee a platform. It’s sort of like how they support federalism except when states do things they don’t like, or small government except for when it comes to their pet issues.

The "support private businesses' rights unless I don't like their decision" is kind of universal, isn't it (okay, minus some libertarians)? Custom cakes for gay weddings was a case where probably everyone who now says "private businesses have no duty to serve you" said the opposite.

Post by Big_Discourse » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 8:45 PM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #52

ultra_nick wrote: post #11

What is Kiwifarms?

I Google'd it and found this, hope it helps! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms

Post by lbruno » Sun, Oct 23, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #150

soundnote wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.