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

231–240 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#231

Post by pseudo0 »

sonoriyuu wrote: post #93
d_e_solomon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The sexual assault claim from Moon is actually based on a story from a Zurich Google employee associated with Liz Fong-Jones that accused her of "violating consent" due to dog hair. It's a story Liz posted herself on Twitter back then and KF picked up with archives as proof, so it's not completely made up because Moon wanted to. Means he can put up (if his site was actually online). But stuff like this clearly shows…

I read up on this after the Cloudflare controversy. Since the site is down, I'm going off my best recollection, but here's a quick summary.

Liz Fong-Jones was friends with the founders of Trans Lifeline, a suicide hotline for trans people. The charity had an admirable mission, but people on the KiwiFarms wondered why the site frequently had no operators available, despite receiving significant funding from private individuals and other LGBTQ groups. This led to questions about where the funding was going, with many users thinking that the charity was a scam.

At some point the Trans Lifeline founders became aware of the KiwiFarms thread, and their friend Liz Fong-Jones got involved. She allegedly used her corporate @google.com email to send a complaint to KiwiFarms' email provider, in what Moon believed was an attempt to intimidate the small business by harnessing Google's clout for a personal beef [0].

Eventually the issues with Trans Lifeline hit the mainstream LGBTQ news and Twitter, the founders left the organization, and there is a filing that the organization made with the California government stating that the old founders made $350k in "unauthorized purchases" yet no criminal charges were laid [1].

[0] - https://archive.ph/U4d0h

[1] - http://web.archive.org/web/20190221114026/http://rct.doj.ca....

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#232

Post by snapplebobapple »

simplotek wrote: post #67
Trumpi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censo…

> No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. That makes no sense. A paper supplier is not censoring anyone if they can't or won't provide printing paper. You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. It's ok if you feel yo have something to say to the world, but that does not give yo…

As an aside, this is only true if the paper supplier has no market power. Generally, if the next best supplier of paper is significantly worse than the one refusing to supply you then yes, they are definitely censoring you.Your position is correct in a competitive market because there are lots of other sellers willing to give the same terms but in the real world it's mostly oligopolies and monopolies with significant market power across broad swaths of the economy who definitely can suppress speech by choosing to not do business with someone.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#233

Post by cowtools »

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.

He seems to be hosting it himself, it's just that his counterparts on the other end of political extremism have campaigned to yank the cables out from under him.

The internet is built on peering relationships at the end of the day. Alice doesn't get to see Bob's website unless the intermediaries agree. In this case, the intermediaries are being made to disagree with Alice and Bob.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#234

Post by cowtools »

bitwize wrote: post #201
mimikatz wrote: post #80

It is amazing how fast net neutrality people disappeared when this was the topic

Net neutrality is about regulating ISPs to prevent them from double-dipping by charging content providers for preferred access to their audience. It is not about giving reactionaries a platform they don't deserve. The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress. Transgressive, anything-goes edgelordism was the right answer in the 90s, when the people seeking to muzzle speech were the moral busybodies on t…

Net neutrality is about regulating ISPs to provide the same delivery service regardless of the content being sent.

What you're describing is just a single implication of net neutrality involving self-bias of ISPs.

>The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress

Humble the assumptions you make on the direction of progress

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#235

Post by Krisando »

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.

I imagine if you're a weaponized Zyklon B provider, you're probably doing a lot of terrible things to begin with.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#236

Post by BigsQuickly »

simplotek wrote: post #81
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.

> 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. No ISP is compelled to provide services to the likes of kiwi farms. If there are no laws, lobby to make them. You have no right to force others to cater to your personal whims, specially if they are objectionable.

Yeah but I can still get fired for misgendering a coworker who decided last week that his name was "Sally". It works both ways.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#237

Post by Carl_B »

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…

He's an American citizen, and the Kiwi Farms is hosted in America. What law did he break by telling the New Zealand police to fuck off?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#238

Post by Carl_B »

immibis wrote: post #121
immibis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on now. This is common knowledge and you can easily research it yourself. What you're doing right now is the moral equivalent of saying "nobody has shown me evidence that germs exist" on a COVID-19 thread.

in fact, they actually do do this, don't they? Quite a lot of COVID-19 deniers demanded proof of "isolation" i.e. they demanded someone to show them a vial of pure COVID-19 virus and then somehow prove that's really what's in the vial. And they demanded proof of "Koch's postulates" i.e. that injecting people with the stuff in the vial gives them COVID-19, etc etc. e.g. this FOIA request: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutu…

Is this false equivalence or whataboutism? I'm not very familiar with debate terms.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#239

Post by Big_Discourse »

slater wrote: post #209
Big_Discourse wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Dunno if the OP edited, but their post reads "KF should not be served by anyone" Not 'allowed'. Anyone with an ounce of decency should realize they shouldn't have anything to do with KF

If you had read the whole post, you would know it does say "allowed".

As for the rest: yes, great, people who do [thing I don't like] are scoundrels. A slow clap for you.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#240

Post by Carl_B »

sonoriyuu wrote: post #83
anaisbetts wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Not even just the NZ users who were posting about it. They wanted the IPs and data of everyone who participated in the thread. I think maybe everyone on the site?
Post reply on HN