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

271–280 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#271

Post by customname »

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

#272

Post by sascha_sl »

bobsmooth wrote: post #242
sascha_sl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think perfect opsec is a realistic target for your average human being (especially outside the tech bubble) or did you just want to victim blame?

The fact that twitch streamers still regularly get their addresses leaked despite taking appropriate measures shows how impossible of a standard this is.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#273

Post by customname »

simplotek wrote: post #29
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.

> 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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#274

Post by luckylion »

lbruno wrote: post #265
luckylion wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've grown up on Kant, and while I don't follow him to the absolutist ends, I do agree that principles are unconditional, or they're worthless intellectual fake jewelry we pretend to have because it looks good.

But in this specific case: I mentioned that "it's a crime if done to me, but totally fine if done to thee" is pretty much universal, and you'll find it in most large ideological groups. Going "the other side does that (but not mine, we're better than that)" is cheap tribalism that is based only in wishful thinking.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#275

Post by bitwize »

cowtools wrote: post #234
bitwize wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Protecting trans people from those who would harass them, even to the point of suicide, is progress.

Have you noticed something about Hackernews? So many of the coolest hacks featured here are created partly or entirely by trans, nonbinary, or genderqueer folx. Asahi Linux, Cosmopolitan libc, bsnes, frickin' ARM processors! And this seems to be only increasing with time. The tech sector and hacker culture are increasingly queered. And the trans/binary/genderqueer/neuroqueer contingent are increasingly in decision-making roles at tech companies and the internet infrastructure itself. If we were to lose them, we would lose perhaps the biggest wellspring of talent in the whole tech sector.

Kiwi Farms has attacked them and in so doing, attacked the network itself. The network is fighting back. It thrives on diversity, nonconformity, and those who question everything, even the identities assigned to them at birth. Kiwi Farms is making those people suffer. Do not expect the internet, which is basically a set of peering relationships maintained by very vulnerable humans, to carry their traffic and thereby condone further harm.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#276

Post by hatefulmoron »

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…

> The legal rights of the companies' that are being asked to host this content is what matters.

I don't believe you. This is the first time you've brought this up, I'm inclined to believe this is just the strongest rationalization you can come up with. In reality, you don't want these people to discuss their ideas and you're shopping for any justification.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#277

Post by LordOfMeese »

insanitybit wrote: post #258
LordOfMeese wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've justified why it's comparable.

You've attempted to and failed because it isn't comparable, yes.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#278

Post by slater »

Big_Discourse wrote: post #239
slater wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the slow clap!

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#279

Post by e844dbe8fb »

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…

[dead]

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#280

Post by louis_friend »

cannabis_sam wrote: post #179

KF defenders are always the true “lolcows”! Have they and/or their nihilistic and sadistic salivation over victims of harassment been made illegal…? Turns out, no… Are private businesses choosing not to service their reprehensible needs for irrelevant gossip legal…? Turns out, yes!!! You either die a free speech defender or you were always an irrelevant misanthropic shitbag who no one wants to associate with… Your ne…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN