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

261–270 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#261

Post by tmottabr »

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.

Yeah, not really.. the argument still stand..

KF can still have their servers and have the site running on then.. They can also go out and install cables connecting their servers to other people for then to access it if they want.. They are allowed to implement their own parallel stack on the side and have 100% control over it as long as they can afford it..

What is happening is that in order to cut those costs they need to use the existing stack and have other companies grab the content from their servers and deliver to other people screens, but other people do not want KF content in their network in any way.. something entirely in their right..

In the end of the day, if they went all the way up the stack and still cannot find a single other company in the whole world willing to work with them it honestly say more about them then it say about the world..

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#262

Post by chroma »

lizthegrey wrote: post #163
sonoriyuu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He has the ability to update the HTML on the page to be more specific if he so chooses, he doesn't need the entire forum backend to do so. I'm waiting...

He's probably busy trying to get his forum back up after your years-long campaign to intimidate and harass anyone who provides him with services.

Once it's up again, people can link to your thread that contains archives of your tweets admitting to violating someone's consent.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#263

Post by chroma »

tmottabr wrote: post #261
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.

Yeah, not really.. the argument still stand.. KF can still have their servers and have the site running on then.. They can also go out and install cables connecting their servers to other people for then to access it if they want.. They are allowed to implement their own parallel stack on the side and have 100% control over it as long as they can afford it.. What is happening is that in order to cut those costs they…

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#264

Post by tmottabr »

josephcsible wrote: post #23
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…

Exactly. If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen, it's not censorship to keep him from having to. But if he does want to listen, it is censorship to keep him from being able to.

yeah.. the problem is that you are forgetting about charlie...

Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings..

The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to transport the tapes she record..

Now, Alice can still record the tapes and she can even go and deliver the tapes herself and bob can listen to those tapes when he get those, but neither of then can force charlies to transport the tapes for them..

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#265

Post by lbruno »

luckylion wrote: post #250
lbruno wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i know you didn't, but you were speaking generically and about abstract principles/guidelines/etc

i usually caution folks to speak of concrete things, so that you're not led astray and forget what you're defending

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#266

Post by vintermann »

tmottabr wrote: post #264
josephcsible wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen, it's not censorship to keep him from having to. But if he does want to listen, it is censorship to keep him from being able to.

yeah.. the problem is that you are forgetting about charlie... Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings.. The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to trans…

The question is if Charlie is some poor guy drafted to carry people's tapes... or if he's like a billionaire owning the street and forbidding Bob from stepping out to walk down to the other end of the street where Alice lives.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#267

Post by lbruno »

icycombative wrote: post #184
lbruno wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thankfully, American websites are not, and never will be, subject to the jurisdiction of the E.U. or the U.K. A lot of blood was spilled for that right.

there's a reason i explicitly chose the example of that threat phoned in re: Belfast

if you think USA-style free-speech ideas will somehow shield you if you engage in that sort of behaviour, or if you frequent the online spaces where that sort of behaviour is coordinated

you should go and have another think

besides, the eejit briefly hosted from a Netherlands DC so good luck with that whole approach ;)

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#268

Post by byyll »

tmottabr wrote: post #249
byyll wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ah, guess I missed that. It's still sadly vague, same as how most other companies choose to write their terms/AUP.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#269

Post by tmottabr »

vintermann wrote: post #266
tmottabr wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah.. the problem is that you are forgetting about charlie... Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings.. The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to trans…

The question is if Charlie is some poor guy drafted to carry people's tapes... or if he's like a billionaire owning the street and forbidding Bob from stepping out to walk down to the other end of the street where Alice lives.

Charlie can be a billionaire and own his own private street, but neither alice or bob can walk into charlie private street, they need to deliver their tapes to charlie and charlie will have to physically transport those packages to the other end of the street to be delivered from alice to bob.. and that is what charlie is refusing to do because he find alice an asshole..

Now alice and bob are not being prevented from meeting in person somewhere else.. hell alice can even build her own street all the way to bob house if she can afford it..

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#270

Post by bobsmooth »

dmamills wrote: post #260
hatefulmoron wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? 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 i…

If what KF is doing is so terrible it would be illegal, but it isn't.
Post reply on HN