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

81–90 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#81

Post by simplotek »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #36
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?

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. ISPs are not police, elected representatives or courts; they shouldn't be allowed to usurp that role.

> 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.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#82

Post by lbruno »

josephcsible wrote: post #53
lbruno wrote: post #39

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

> 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 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?

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 defend; or you can stop digging

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#83

Post by sonoriyuu »

anaisbetts wrote: post #33
ultra_nick wrote: post #11

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.

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 comply. That didn't go well with the NZ law enforcement and got them delisted from there.

This is why people associate KF with Christchurch, however the terrorism act itself was not initiated by a KF user and anyone saying so is spreading fake news.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#84

Post by sascha_sl »

josephcsible wrote: post #61
sascha_sl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but Cloudflare and several other ISPs will not drop you simply because a large volume of people complains. This doesn't work like Twitter moderation. The quality of these complaints warrants not wanting those people associated with you.

> Cloudflare and several other ISPs will not drop you simply because a large volume of people complains. Yes they will. This is the example of them literally doing exactly that.

Then why are they still hosting several sites that people complain about it all the time too. Cloudflare loves providing services to Nazis as long as they don't get themselves associated with mass shootings too often in the same small time window (8chan) or your Infosec hire turns out to be associated with some of the Nazis who claim they have inside help to stay on Cloudflare. (Daily Stormer)

Infowars is literally on Cloudflare right now.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#85

Post by insanitybit »

byyll wrote: post #75
insanitybit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing. This is a good thing. edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/…

Using your analogy with malware and spam, the users that do not want to read kiwifarms can choose not to by.. just not reading it. Or blocking it in their firewall or browser. Seems like it's a bad analogy.

Not really. Those who host malware and spam domains have them taken down. It's not just about a user receiving a spam email, it's also the fact that when a domain is being used to distribute malware the hosting provider will remove them.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#86

Post by hnusersarelame »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #36
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?

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. ISPs are not police, elected representatives or courts; they shouldn't be allowed to usurp that role.

> In March 2019, Kiwi Farms republished both the livestream and the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. Shortly after, website owner Joshua Moon publicly denied a request by New Zealand Police to voluntarily hand over all data on posts about the shooting, including the email and IP addresses of posters. Moon responded aggressively and mockingly, calling New Zealand a "shithole country", and stated that he did not "give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law says about sharing your email".

The law won’t work here. They don’t care about the law.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#87

Post by geofft »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #45
lbruno wrote: post #39

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

> 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 Speech does not require justification any more than any other right does. As a principle, speech is not for something. So I in fact have to neither justify nor endorse KF to consider this wrong.

Then how do you decide what is (or should be) a right and what is not? Suppose someone claims a right to gay marriage, or a right to employ only people of their race, or a right to bear arms - how does society (the citizenry, the legislature, and/or the courts) decide whether that is indeed a right?

Absent a holy constitution given to us by the divine, the way we decide what is and isn't a right is we look at its effect. Places that recognize a right to bear arms, for instance, do so because they believe that arming the citizenry protects them against abuses of the government. Places that don't do so because they believe that disarming the citizenry protects them against crimes from other citizens. To the extent that one of these views is correct and the other is not, it is not because they guessed wrong about the nature of the universe - it is because one argument is correct and another is not.

Free speech is not axiomatic. Free speech is a right (and I agree it is a right!) because it has particular positive effects on society, through the benefits of open and unfiltered public discourse.

And the same reasoning helps us define exactly what "free speech" is. We make significant restrictions on free speech - classified information, copyright and trademark law, slander and tortious interference, electioneering laws, unauthorized practice of medicine or law, fraud, etc. - in the expectation that those restrictions serve to benefit society, and in the understanding that if we were to allow these forms of speech, they wouldn't really serve the goals which we see free speech, overall, as helping. If I were to say "I am a licensed doctor and I think you should take two pounds of Vitamin D a day," we understand that the benefit of me adding that statement to the public discourse is nil, and the harm is great, and so we don't recognize that as protected by free speech.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#88

Post by simplotek »

Trumpi wrote: post #78
simplotek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That makes no sense. A paper supplier is not censoring anyone if they can't or won't provide printing paper. You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. It's ok if you feel yo have something to say to the world, but that does not give yo…

> You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. I'm not sure how the paper supplier fits in to this argument. Perhaps it is a good analogy for the original topic.

> No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides.

You stated no point.

You're trying to ignore the fact that businesse relationships require all parts to participate voluntarily.

If one part tries to abuse the terms of those services then service providers are free to not continue with the business arrangement.

Not continuing a business arrangement is not censorship.

Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#89

Post by immibis »

orangepurple wrote: post #21
DangitBobby wrote: post #18

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?

Then you should research it before commenting.

Maybe you're not aware, but when an ISP receives a load of hate mail saying "cut off this site" this mail is received by a human who has a chance to check out the site and decide whether it is so evil it should be cut off, or whether the haters are just full of shit.

We aren't even talking about a mere repository of hateful information - in terms of badness, Kiwifarms isn't like a Nazi's Guide to Killing Untermensch. Even that could probably find hosting somewhere on the internet. It's a level above that. This was a forum for coordinating tracking down and harassing people in real life and keeping them in constant fear until they commit suicide. That's the point. They do it for fun.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#90

Post by lotsofpulp »

zo1 wrote: post #62
lotsofpulp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps high quality fiber connections with decent upload capacity should be a utility to every home. And ipv6. Then cutting off connections has to go through courts.

Hosting anything on your home connections is already a ToS violation on probably 99.999% of ISPs out there. No need to be Kiwifarms to be kicked off. It's also common from what I heard for them to block incoming HTTP ports entirely.

Yes, that would have to be changed by legislation requiring a utility to not do that.
Post reply on HN