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

191–200 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#191

Post by lbruno »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #45
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 Speech does not require justification any more than any other right does. As a principle, speech is not for something. So I in fact have to neither justify nor endorse KF to consider this wrong.

lol, speech isn't an absolute right where i grew up, thankfully

i'm European, you're arguing as if i had to meekly accept your framing that impeding someone from speaking is a bad thing

who is speaking and what they're saying is crucial to that assessment, hence you get to justify e.g. the threats KF orchestrated in Belfast if you want to justify keeping KF on the air

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#192

Post by Big_Discourse »

anaisbetts wrote: post #33
ultra_nick wrote: post #11

What is Kiwifarms?

It is a KKK-level hate site against LGBT people and particularly trans women, that actively seeks to terrorize them by doxxing them and their family members. Several suicides have been attributed directly to their actions, as well as the Christchurch massacre.

Mentioning the Christchurch massacre is interesting. The Kiwi Farms had nothing to do with it other than re-posting the video after the fact -- the video that was live-streamed in its entirety on Facebook, a billion-dollar platform that supposedly has paid moderators.

Kiwi Farms was dropped by Cloudflare due to "imminent threat to human life". You know what that threat was? Some shitpost saying the poster called up some lads to place bombs at all the poutine places in Belfast. That post, which was very obviously nothing more than a joke in poor taste, was downvoted by the community as being dumb, and was removed within 15 minutes. Cloudflare used it as justification to permanently drop the entire site. Yet Facebook can actually live-stream a massacre (how's that for an "imminent threat"?) and continue operating. Hmm.

As for the suicides, that's something that gets repeated constantly, but is rather spurious. The supposed victims had messed up lives that they intentionally publicized online, and the Kiwi Farms did not cause their issues just by laughing at them. How do you "directly attribute" a suicide to a site, anyway? If I post saying someone is ugly, and that person kills themselves, am I directly responsible?

Also, one of the supposed victims is most likely still alive and faked his suicide, as the only confirmation is that a journalist claims to have called his employer, which is a weird way to confirm someone's death. No official reports or any other confirmation.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#193

Post by dmatech »

sascha_sl wrote: post #10
josephcsible wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is different from email spam filters and antivirus software because the recipient can choose to bypass the latter for individual emails or files if they want to. And that ability is important, since both have false positives a lot.

Can the targets of Kiwifarms opt-out from being harassed as a result of being listed alongside their address on the site?

There's a fundamental difference between being spoken to and being spoken about. You have a right to prevent others from speaking to you but not about you (at least in the USA).

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#194

Post by dmatech »

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…

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 enforcement involved.

Note that there is no #4 that says "harass everyone they depend on in an attempt to get them taken offline".

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#195

Post by dmatech »

DangitBobby wrote: post #18
kdmsk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed all this ride has been a cold lesson and has thankfully shut down the stupid “host it yourself” argument forever.

It mostly works until your speech is so repugnant that no one is willing to risk being associated with you.

That doesn't appear to be the issue here, though. The users of the site don't find each other completely repugnant. The ISPs might, but repugnance has historically not been a justification for de-peering in the past (at least in the USA).

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#196

Post by dmatech »

d_e_solomon wrote: post #40
bigshell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is harassment? Is it talking about people on a website? People say that stating someone's address, phone number, email, is a form of doxing and therefore harassment. But, these things are just statements of fact. To say that the statement and sharing of factual information obtained legally is not a free speech issue is completely disingenous, 12 years ago when WikiLeaks was leaking information which had been giv…

We keep seeing actions from Kiwifarms that include doxing, swatting,and cyber bullying that lead to the suicide and death of people. If you're saying that swatting is free speech, then we've pushed the idea of speech beyond all reasonable boundaries and have decided that speech just means that people are free from consequences of their actions.

Swatting is not free speech. Posting the address of someone (knowing that there's a non-zero chance some idiot might use it in a swatting) is generally free speech, because negligent or reckless speech is usually protected.

It's irresponsible, but it's generally protected.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#197

Post by hairofadog »

dmatech wrote: post #194
insanitybit wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 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.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#198

Post by dmatech »

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.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#199

Post by Big_Discourse »

lbruno wrote: post #82
josephcsible wrote: post #53

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 That's not true, though. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... David Goldberger, a Jewish lawyer, defended actual Nazis' rights to free speech. Do you think that he thought Nazism was justified?

i'm European, but i am familiar with the work of the ACLU at Skokie, including that detail keywords: i'm European meaning your appeal to an absolute right to freely speech washes right off it's on you to defend the harassment incited and guided by KF that includes, i'll remind you, a juvenile attempt at calling in a threat in Belfast; didn't work, they didn't know the old code-words one example of what you'll need to…

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#200

Post by Big_Discourse »

lbruno wrote: post #185
luckylion wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN