Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blocking Kiwifarms

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#641

Post by alexnewman »

lettergram wrote: post #366

> However, as the pressure campaign escalated, so did the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site. Feeling attacked, users of the site became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site. I’m sorry, but what? Few thoughts: 1. Cou…

I’m sure cloudflare complies with all lawful orders to police and any unlawful activity reported to them that’s verifiable. It’s standard cover your ass policy. You can’t expect a corporation to put its own politics in front of its shareholders

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#642

Post by [deleted] »

xupybd wrote: post #519
notatoad wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>rather than free speech i encourage anybody who is calls themselves a "free speech advocate" to consider what kiwifarms has been doing to "free speech". their intimidation campaigns have been doing a lot more to harm the cause of free speech than this decision by cloudflare is. if you really believe in free speech, you understand that trans people deserve free speech too, and kiwifarms harrasment campaigns have been…

Free speech is about giving people the freedom to say things I find disgusting. It's about giving each individual the choice to listen to what ever influence they wish. It takes the the power of ideas and elevates them above physical force.

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#643

Post by bobsmooth »

AgentME wrote: post #465
OrangeMonkey wrote: post #253

I hope we can all join hands and say "DDOS'ing is a crime and we all hope that the FBI finds people participating in DDOS attacks and put them in jail." That shouldn't be controversial right?

An exclusive focus on getting legal repercussions for the people who acted against KF and not any focus on legal repercussions for KF is some false neutrality.

KF has been sued multiple times and won every case.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#644

Post by [deleted] »

Cyberdog wrote: post #558
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

> Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. > That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat. This is the logic of vigilantes. I'm not saying what you have done is on the same leve…

[deleted]

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#645

Post by benmmurphy »

thebradbain wrote: post #561
Cyberdog wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. > That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat. This is the logic of vigilantes. I'm not saying what you have done is on the same leve…

KF can (and does) say whatever they want. That does not give its users the right to doxx an individual or threaten them or otherwise illegally harass them via extra-judicial measures. It’s that simple. It’s also in Cloudflare’s very own terms of service that KF agreed to when they signed up

Is there doxxing and threats actually carried out on KF that are not suppressed by the moderators? I've read some of the lolcow threads and have never seen serious threats or serious doxx material like addresses. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because I have not read a lot of KF content but I think people need to provide supporting evidence for these claims. My suspicion is a lot of the bad stuff is not organized directly on KF but rather secret discord/telegram groups.

There also seems to be a double standard where dropkiwifarms.net has a link to a google drive that seems to be somewhat similar to the content that might appear on a lolcow thread and could be interpreted as 'doxxing'. For example it has a copy of Joshua Moon's resume and a legal document showing his name change.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-sFPWY4HXOxvIUzkyyHV...

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#646

Post by philippejara »

miragecraft wrote: post #386

I don't get it, Cloudflare is not the court, nor is it a monopoly. It's not some tragic Greek hero holding the line for freedom of speech. It's just a business, and business can decide to not provide service to assholes, just like your local restaurant. It already decided it won't provide hosting service to the despicables, but somehow the security service is vital to freedom of speech? I don't buy it. It's all about…

If Matthew Prince didn't style himself as the tragic Greek hero holding the line for freedom of speech then yes, most of this disappointment would not have happened.

People are mostly not claiming they have no right to drop them, or an obligation to keep them up, but claiming one thing and then 3 days later buckling under pressure is extremely disappointing. Especially when the underlying implication is that the website would hopefully be taken down by actually illicit means, those being DDOS attacks.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#647

Post by nematode_tech »

amachefe wrote: post #633
nematode_tech wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Vigilantism isn't a great thing, but what choice do we have when authorities allow hate sites like Kiwifarms to stay online? After all, as Yonatan Zunger famously wrote, tolerance is not a moral precept. In conclusion, vigilantism is fine if done against someone you dont like... cool

Whom I personally like is irrelevant. We're talking about public safety here. We opened a Pandora's box of hate and violence when we created the internet. The state, which is ordinarily charged with protecting the public from danger, has failed to respond to the threat, justifying its inaction with references to 18th century texts written before the steam engine became practical. If the state refuses to act, we as technologists must. For the good of society, we have to cut off access to hate --- not only at the DDOS prevention level, but at the browser, the network, and even operating system level. To stand by and do nothing while violent speech floods our communication channels is to be complicit in this speech.

For example: why is the Tor project facilitating the spread of hate by keeping Kiwifarms accessible? The Tor project's mission of preserving user privacy does not include facilitating access to harassment material.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#648

Post by abigail95 »

altcognito wrote: post #140
ffwszgf wrote: post #53

Cloudflare can do whatever it wants but I wish they were honest about it. The claim that there has been some “dangerous escalation” in the past 2 weeks is nonsense. If anything the owner has been monitoring the thread more proactively and making sure people follow the law. This is included not allowing the creation of new accounts and reminding everyone that their data will be turned over to the authorities should it…

> The claim that there has been some “dangerous escalation” in the past 2 weeks is nonsense. I don’t believe you have the same information as cloudflare and assuming good faith I believe them when they say there are legitimate threats to body and person. They have a responsibility to their investors to insure that their brand isn’t used to coordinate violence. Dont just shrug your shoulders while a small group invite…

Having never read Kiwifarms I don't know whether the threats are real or not.

But it's not like the person/s they are targeting, or their plans are secret

CF is making a specific claim that law enforcement is too slow against the escalting risk.

Why would this be true?

Kiwifarms seems like a big problem but it's a small fish in the total criminal pool.

It's not like a Kiwifarms post goes up and a bomb goes off 5 minutes later. If the police can send a swat team anywhere in the US within 2 hours for a hoax, I'm certain the same resource exists for actual threats.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#649

Post by causality0 »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems.

Post the screenshot then. Show us what changed between when CF said "KF is acting within the bounds of the law and will remain online" and today.

Refusing service to customers you find contemptible is completely reasonable. Continuing to service customers out of a sense of fairness even though you find them contemptible is also reasonable. Pretending that you have a sense of fairness that keeps all legal entities online and abandoning it to protect your bottom line is hypocritical and cowardly.

Being a company that protects the vulnerable is every bit as honorable as being a company that stands for freedom of expression. Today Cloudflare proves it is neither.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#650

Post by andywood »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

"the threat"

Ever think the feds have half a brain among them, and know there's no threat?

I know how gullible people are in these culture-warish times, but I still hope you've lost credibility with some significant fraction of us. Maybe those of us old enough to remember when the average techy was libertarian and opposed censorship. The Farms is right back up, by the way. But at least now you can wash your hands of it. Don't think Twitter will stop coming at you though. You need to understand those people want to punish and teach.

Post reply on HN