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

91–100 of 295 posts

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#91

Post by immibis »

zo1 wrote: post #55
orangepurple wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Putting this at the beginning, just in case. I'm not saying that I support this website, but if we're going to be deplatforming and targeting websites, we better be damn sure that they're evil , otherwise we're just puppets of the activists. 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 harassmen…

Last I checked, Kiwifarms was accessible intermittently on Tor and it contained pretty much the content described.

What if it's not a targeted harassment campaign and the site really is evil?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#92

Post by immibis »

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.

It's not simply because a large volume of people complained.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#93

Post by sonoriyuu »

d_e_solomon wrote: post #24
orangepurple wrote: post #15

Snapshot of the main page: https://archive.ph/aIUSE Excerpt from the top: Zayo, our ISP, has suddenly discontinued service. This is because Blake Willis, a 20 year senior network engineer in the company's Paris HQ, is friends with Liz Fong-Jones - a former Google employee associated with Trans LifeLine charity directors who were removed for inurement, and recently accused of sexual assault. I have appealed this decis…

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.

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 a conflict in interest between Liz and Moon, hence what makes this story even more complicated.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#94

Post by byyll »

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.

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?

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#95

Post by lbruno »

dreen wrote: post #20
josephcsible wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the legal definition of harassment, or just the colloquial one? If the legal one, then use the legal system to stop it instead of vigilantism. If just the colloquial one, then it is a free speech issue.

If I think my customer is using my service to harass people do I need to sue them? Or can I just refuse business? It's not the same as refusing to make a gay cake either, because you can't discriminate based on someone being an asshole.

it's the other way around, you can discriminate against arseholes

there's specific prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of certain categories

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#96

Post by immibis »

josephcsible wrote: post #66
d_e_solomon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but any reasonable examination of Kiwifarms shows a history of swatting, doxing, and bullying that has led to suicides. If I had a hosting business, I don't see why I should be required to carry their content or provide service to them. It's not a free speech question - it's a shitty behavior question.

> If I had a hosting business, I don't see why I should be required to carry their content or provide service to them. This story is about an ISP, not a hosting business. To understand why, imagine if you were instead a utility company asking why you should have to provide water or electricity to them.

No post body was provided.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#97

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#98

Post by Trumpi »

simplotek wrote: post #88
Trumpi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 censor…

Again, I'm merely saying that spam control is not censorship. Your argument about participating in business relationships might have merit, but it is a different argument.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#99

Post by immibis »

haswell wrote: post #46
josephcsible wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but when they are, we should just fix them, rather than resorting to vigilantism.

> rather than resorting to vigilantism Where/how is vigilantism occurring?

Kiwifarms users are engaging in vigilantism against their targets, and it's not even vigilantism for a real crime - it's vigilantism for the "crime" of being transgender.

Re: Kiwifarms Dropped by Their ISP

#100

Post by insanitybit »

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.

Not according to Cloudflare. Ironically, once Kiwifarms started harassing Cloudflare employees that's when Cloudflare removed them.
Post reply on HN