51–60 of 295 posts
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.
What is Kiwifarms?
i'm enjoying the right-leaning comments here -- it's not censorship, it's being censured which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it with examples which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured
That's not true, though. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... David Goldberger, a Jewish lawyer, defended actual Nazis' rights to free speech. Do you think that he thought Nazism was justified?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It mostly works until your speech is so repugnant that no one is willing to risk being associated with you.
I don't know what Kikifarms is/does/has. That said, what do you do if you are asymmetrically attacked by activists? Are you automatically in the wrong?
Kiwifarms triggered a cascade. They did "enough" questionable things to create a slew of articles that self-reference each other and paint a picture of "kiwi farms is a harassment website that does these X Y Z bad things". There is no "proving" that they aren't bad now, it's been decided by some sort of weird and emergent self-referencing consensus process on the internet.
Last time this topic came up, I tried so very very hard, to find credible sources about wtf this website or it's users did exactly, and couldn't (found some but it was very light). I mean it's there on Wikipedia sure, but if you keep digging it starts repeating and self-referencing other websites that are just as "not credible" or relying on "other websites" that I can't take them seriously on their claims.
This very much reminds me of the question of notability and citing of sources in Wikipedia. The articles they reference are "enough" to have Wikipedia say that this website is "tied [...] to the suicides of three people targeted by members of the forum.". Wtf does "tied" even mean here? Red-flags abound. At this point it seems like a targeted harassment campaign by activists that may well not even know what Kiwifarms did first-hand.
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…
Estradiol as a medication is easily available. It is listed on the WHO list of essential medicines and very commonly prescribed to women after menopause. So there's no money to be made there either.
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…
Advising underage people through a wiki on how to make hormones at home is neither sexual assault nor grooming as the term is conventionally understood. How could it be? You can't get in contact with an anonymous reader of information that has been published to the public. You have no idea what they do with that information. So I am not really understanding what its relevance in this thread is.
(If anything, it's an example of free speech. You might not be a fan of it, which is totally fine, but information that advises people of any age on knowledge that people would prefer to be un-known is obviously at least as deserving of free speech protection - both in the legal sense of protection from government interference and in the moral sense that lovers of a free society should support it having a platform - as anything posted on Kiwifarms.)
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?
Whenever Kiwi Farms comes up, I see these claims made about it - that people were threatened with violence, that the forum was used to coordinate harassment campaigns, that home addresses were posted, etc etc - but never with any specific examples shown of any of that happening.
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.
That’s (among the reasons) why you need net neutrality, which covers the lowest level of the stack.
EDIT: It is interesting that it is the same people that oppose net neutrality that tend to support government intervention at all other levels of the stack to assure that their preferred content regulation and only that content regulation is enforced.