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

241–250 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#241

Post by bjowen »

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.

No need to hypothesize, a perfectly anagolous situation occurred, ten years ago, in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/lethal-injecti...

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#242

Post by bobsmooth »

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?

Yes, stop posting your personal information online.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#243

Post by bobsmooth »

DarkByte8 wrote: post #170

Can someone explain to me how 4chan which is in the news all the time linked to mass shooters, linked to Trump and 2016 election, link to misinformation, etc. is still up but kiwifarms is dropped by every company?

4chan is ephemeral. Kiwifarms documents and archives. One is clearly more dangerous.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#244

Post by LordOfMeese »

insanitybit wrote: post #120
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…

I've updated my post to address this. While some of that is in the user's control lots of this happens behind the scenes ie: AWS banning users of SES who send out spam emails, GMail banning the spam accounts, hosting providers removing domains or infra that host malware/C2 infra, etc. This is all happening constantly behind the scenes to stop what is very literally "speech", what might even be legally protected speec…

"What if this entirely different situation that is in no way comparable, huh? Bet you didn't think about that, huh?"

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#246

Post by dmamills »

hatefulmoron wrote: post #219
dmamills wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are ten thousand homophobic racists posters supposed to be more valuable than one?

What is zero times ten thousand?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#247

Post by dmamills »

cowtools wrote: post #233
dmamills wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The internet is certainly built on "peering" relationships. So when someone finds out that you host a website where you spray your "white replacement theories", or your forum members spend a near decade documenting and mocking the existence of dozens of human beings.

You shouldn't be surprised when people don't want to be in a relationship with you anymore, or do business with you anymore.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#248

Post by hatefulmoron »

dmamills wrote: post #246
hatefulmoron wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are ten thousand homophobic racists posters supposed to be more valuable than one? What is zero times ten thousand?

If you think racist/homophobic people are in some sense "worth" zero, you're too far gone.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#249

Post by tmottabr »

byyll wrote: post #94
simplotek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why arguments justifying censorship by saying "just host it yourself then" are wrong. That was never the argument. The argument is that private companies have the right to provide their services in their terms, and if your intended use violates those terms then you also have the right to pick a services that tolerates you and your intended use. Aka gay wedding cakes.

And what point of the acceptable use policy of Zayo does KiwiFarms break? In any case, is there a point at which it's impossible to have another private company provide you services and you'd consider it censorship?

2.7 The prohibited activities set forth above are not an exhaustive list and Zayo reserves the right to take appropriate action to remedy any conduct which it deems to be a violation of this Policy or otherwise may be harmful to Zayo’s Network, its Customers, or Internet users.

[0] https://www.zayo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/zayo-accepta...

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#250

Post by luckylion »

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…

I hadn't replied to anything you said, but to api's statement:

> 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.

Post reply on HN