251–260 of 295 posts
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.
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.
Moon? Please loop me in. There is precedent for censorious tech conglomerates (reddit, at least) to defend people who are sex offenders. I'm no fan of Kiwifarms, but I'm also no fan of the DIY HRT guide Keffals runs that advises (often underage) people on doing home-chemistry to make hormones. Would be nice if the right could stop slandering every trans person as a mentally ill groomer and the left could stop labelin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moon? Please loop me in. There is precedent for censorious tech conglomerates (reddit, at least) to defend people who are sex offenders. I'm no fan of Kiwifarms, but I'm also no fan of the DIY HRT guide Keffals runs that advises (often underage) people on doing home-chemistry to make hormones. Would be nice if the right could stop slandering every trans person as a mentally ill groomer and the left could stop labelin…
If you support Kiwifarms on free speech grounds, I absolutely don't see how you could fail to support a DIY HRT guide on the same free speech grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The production and distribution of medication is regulated, and minors are a protected class of citizens. These are the two major issues with DIY HRT guides.
But surely if you have a problem with the distribution of information about how chemicals are produced, you should also have an issue with, you know, deliberately driving people to suicide by making their lives hell. One seems worse than the other.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value, and the people that produce it are diminishing their own self-worth. I believe spending your finite existence to disparage others for things they can't control is not a worthy use of time.
If that is the definition of too far gone, then I'm happy to be here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think racist/homophobic people are in some sense "worth" zero, you're too far gone.
It's lovely of you to suggest that I'm "too far gone". That me, or people like me, might actually be the issue here. I suppose it's one of your only options at this point? What are you going to do? Actually defend the "legally discussed" content at the heart of this conversation? I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value, and the people that produce it are diminishing their own…
What is the implication here? That I can't meaningfully defend someone's ability to discuss their ideas with other willing participants if I don't actually agree with the content of their message? Interesting stuff.
> I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value
To be clear, your original comment implied that the people themselves are of zero value. Regardless, if person A wants to listen to what person B has to say about race or sexuality, why does your opinion even matter? I don't give a fuck what you, or the relevant ISP thinks.
There are plenty of websites on the internet that cater to your sensibilities. Reddit, for instance. Perhaps you should go back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?"
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. 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.
The only exception to this is very obvious malice. Everything else is more likely to get you fired if you complain to HR than them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's lovely of you to suggest that I'm "too far gone". That me, or people like me, might actually be the issue here. I suppose it's one of your only options at this point? What are you going to do? Actually defend the "legally discussed" content at the heart of this conversation? I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value, and the people that produce it are diminishing their own…
> I suppose it's one of your only options at this point? What are you going to do? Actually defend the "legally discussed" content at the heart of this conversation? What is the implication here? That I can't meaningfully defend someone's ability to discuss their ideas with other willing participants if I don't actually agree with the content of their message? Interesting stuff. > I certainly believe that racist and…
Not exactly. The implication is that it is all you can do. You have to wrap up all this hateful content and cover it in a blanket of "free speech" so that it is palatable for you to defend. There is no defending the actual content, just the abstract idea that should be allowed to be said.
Forgive me for not making my context clear in the original comment. I believe every human has value, I believe producing hateful content diminishes that value, and is not a productive activity.
I'm not sure what to say about the last bit of your comment. My opinion certainly doesn't matter. The legal rights of the companies' that are being asked to host this content is what matters. In section 2.6.7 and 2.7 of Zayo's Acceptable Use policy, they use open ended language so they can express their right to control what customers they do business with.
https://www.zayo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/zayo-accepta...