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

211–220 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#211

Post by Big_Discourse »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#212

Post by pandaman »

insanitybit wrote: post #6
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.

I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing. This is a good thing. edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/…

I am getting SMSes from (D) governor candidate in the inbox and the ones from (R) are going into the "Spam". If my telco decided to delete those it would be censorship.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#213

Post by RedReality »

d_e_solomon wrote: post #24
orangepurple wrote: post #15

Snapshot of the main page: https://archive.ph/aIUSE Excerpt from the top: Zayo, our ISP, has suddenly discontinued service. This is because Blake Willis, a 20 year senior network engineer in the company's Paris HQ, is friends with Liz Fong-Jones - a former Google employee associated with Trans LifeLine charity directors who were removed for inurement, and recently accused of sexual assault. I have appealed this decis…

Suddenly everyone who attacks Moon supposedly committed sexual assault and is a groomer or some other slanderous attack. Moon should put up or shut up.

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#214

Post by RedReality »

lamontcg wrote: post #175
sonoriyuu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Christchurch massacre wasn't initiated by a KF user or initially streamed there. That happened on Facebook. KF "only" archived and reposted the video and manifesto by the Christchurch terrorist. This is illegal in New Zealand and the police asked KF to release the data of all NZ users commenting on the video, which JM refused to do since it's an overreach and they legally run under an US entity thus don't have to…

> KF "only" archived and reposted the video and manifesto by the Christchurch terrorist. oh yeah, then they're totally fine...

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#215

Post by bigshell »

dmatech wrote: post #196
d_e_solomon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never said swatting was free speech. I know people who have been SWATted over petty Minecraft related disputes before, and I've had people threaten to call the police on me before and tell them that I'm going to rock up to a crowded event with a carbomb. It's a very scary thing, and I don't have an issue with outlawing false emergency services calls that aim to mobilize unnecessarily militarized police forces.

Luckily, Kiwi Farms has always denied having anything to do with swattings, and there has never been anything to substantiate the claim that people are organising swattings on Kiwi Farms. It is (or was) a public website, so if people are really planning this criminal activity in plain sight it should not really be too difficult to provide evidence for this.

The addresses on Kiwi Farms are already public. They're on the White Pages, public voter registries, WHOIS records, legal filings. Do you think that Kiwi Farms not sharing these addresses would somehow prevent a criminal from getting these addresses?

Edit: I completely misread the comment sorry, I thought your statement "swatting is illegal" was implying that Kiwi Farms had been organising swattings, etc. I'm not going to delete this comment though because I like to think its contents make a good point.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#216

Post by byyll »

hairofadog wrote: post #207
byyll wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My "beef" is with companies that are not directly hosting the legal user generated content on KiwiFarms - that's the case with Zayo as an upstream ISP and Cloudflare as a reverse proxy. Harassment, if any, can't happen on the forum as I assume the people that are harassed don't visit it. Though that 3-step solution comment was made by someone else, Cloudflare chooses to ignore various illegal things with the argument "we are not hosting it." I don't think Cloudflare can sue Kiwifarms. And I think the process usually goes the other way around - law enforcement complains to Cloudflare to get something taken down. My point is law is above any AUPs or ToS and it's hypocritical for a company to claim "we don't host content" or no responsibility when it comes to illegal content but take down legal content because of pressure or political beliefs as if they now have some responsibility.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#217

Post by shitlord »

josephcsible wrote: post #138
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. And soon the argument devolves into 'just run your own ISP'.

Yep. And even that ends up not working, because even when you are an ISP, you need to peer with or get transit from other ISPs.

Is municipal fiber the solution to this problem? The government cannot arbitrarily deny services or crack down on lawful speech.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#218

Post by syrrim »

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.

This hypothetical is utter nonsense. If you weren't helping hitler, he would send his storm troopers to arrest you, then do what he wanted anyways. There's a reason godwin's law exists: people think that invoking hitler is an argument cure-all, not realizing there's a reason why hitler is considered a uniquely bad person.

We pretense to live in a "free society". This refers to one where each person is allowed to do as he pleases, as long as he isn't interfering with another's right to do the same. The concept of "utility neutrality" can only exist within such a society, but more importantly, a free society cannot exist without such a concept. As long as there are laws preventing a person from misusing utilities, someone's use of a utility can never be an attack on another's freedom: before that occurred, they would be arrested for breaking the law. On the other hand, people rely on access to utilities for heating, for cooking, and more broadly for survival, let alone necessary for that pursuit of happiness supposed to be crucial to the american dream. If a person's utilities can be cut off arbitrarily, then naturally this can be used as a punishment for their behaviour or identity; their person, in other words, is no longer free to do as they will. If you cannot see how this is exactly a step towards hitler's dystopia, then there is no helping you.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#219

Post by hatefulmoron »

dmamills wrote: post #203
dmatech wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You write as if the forum is simply Moon writing to himself on alternate accounts. There are tens of thousands of willing participants discussing legally with eachother.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#220

Post by yanderekko »

immibis wrote: post #115
dehrmann wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely. It should inspire people to push for legislation that requires cloud providers to host protected speech, provided someone is paying the bill.

Provided someone is paying the bill and the site's location and ownership are accessible to law enforcement (like any other site). I'm not sure KF would be considered protected speech, even in the USA.

>I'm not sure KF would be considered protected speech, even in the USA.

It absolutely is.

Post reply on HN