4 ms·

It's also a website with a culture of methodically archiving people's behavior, whether you agree with how it gets used or not. I agree with freedom of speech,

It's also a website with a culture of methodically archiving people's behavior, whether you agree with how it gets used or not. I agree with freedom of speech, but also I do think people ought to be held accountable for the things they say and do.

throwanem 7y ago
I'd be awfully hesitant to trust factual claims made by people who speak and behave as that site's users do. Nothing I've seen from them suggests a willingness to scruple at fabricating evidence.
- Cyberdog 7y ago
  On the contrary, Kiwis are meticulous about verifying and preserving evidence. Posting information about someone without third-party archive links or some other way to verify what you're saying will result in you, at best, being politely reminded to post verification. If it's verified that you were intentionally posting false information to stir up drama, you will likely be banned and maybe even have your own thread made about you with all of your dirty laundry proudly on display. Yes, Kiwis dox and mock people and say gamer words, and that sort of edgi boi behavior isn't for everyone. But the information it collects is rarely inaccurate. EDIT: For what it's worth, it looks like Byuu posted in his own thread last month taking accountability for some of his bad behavior and got a mostly warm response from the Kiwis. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/byuu-byuu_nyan-setsunakun0.43056/post-5982121 https://kiwifarms.net/threads/byuu-byuu_nyan-setsunakun0.430...
  - tiles 7y ago
    This is such a strange response. Byuu's two posts later in the thread contain several corrections, particularly on their alleged cartridge hoarding behavior. It invalidates the claims of the original post while not denying any of the evidence was true. A well sourced Wikipedia article can still be biased. The presence of sources isn't mutually exclusive with bias.
    - Cyberdog 7y ago
      > It invalidates the claims of the original post while not denying any of the evidence was true. So the evidence is still true, then? And the paragraph at the top of the OP states that it is slightly out of date. > A well sourced Wikipedia article can still be biased. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ I'm increasingly becoming convinced Wikipedia is a toxic garbage dump. The Wii U article states that it had the fewest game releases of any Nintendo console. I tried adding the words "…since the Virtual Boy" to turn that into a factually correct statement and it got reverted. I don't have the time to get into a slapfight with another editor about facts, so the incorrect statement remains. Whatever.
      - snvzz 7y ago
        I've found that sometimes it is better to add a {{fact}} macro to incorrect information, and let others do the hard work. Contributing to Wikipedia is unfortunately hard to navigate, with a lot of social trickery required just to get blatant incorrect information fixed.
  - 0134340 7y ago
    >Posting information about someone One of the biggest problems is that anyone can make up the same username anywhere online and use it in false flag attempts to harm someone's reputation and the dramaqueens at Kiwifarm don't care as long as it's "verified" by their very ambiguous standards, something which has happened there before many times. >to stir up drama Ironic since the whole product they're selling there is drama and invoking it not only on their own boards but elsewhere.
  - favorited 7y ago
    > and say gamer words what words are those?
    - Cyberdog 7y ago
      Certain slurs against a person's race or sexuality. They came to be called "gamer words" as a meme after PewDiePie dropped one while playing a game of PUBG live on stream.
dependenttypes 7y ago
There used to be a banner in that site that said that white-knighting was not allowed. I understood that to mean that if someone posted something refuting another post that was criticizing that person they would get banned. I would agree with you if kiwifarms was a truly free site that aimed to stay objective but this does not seem to be the case.
tiles 7y ago
"Held accountable" on the post seems to include moral depravity like "he posted anti-Trump tweets". I don't think that's really accurate here.

throwanem 7y ago

I'd be awfully hesitant to trust factual claims made by people who speak and behave as that site's users do. Nothing I've seen from them suggests a willingness to scruple at fabricating evidence.

Cyberdog 7y ago
On the contrary, Kiwis are meticulous about verifying and preserving evidence. Posting information about someone without third-party archive links or some other way to verify what you're saying will result in you, at best, being politely reminded to post verification. If it's verified that you were intentionally posting false information to stir up drama, you will likely be banned and maybe even have your own thread made about you with all of your dirty laundry proudly on display. Yes, Kiwis dox and mock people and say gamer words, and that sort of edgi boi behavior isn't for everyone. But the information it collects is rarely inaccurate. EDIT: For what it's worth, it looks like Byuu posted in his own thread last month taking accountability for some of his bad behavior and got a mostly warm response from the Kiwis. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/byuu-byuu_nyan-setsunakun0.43056/post-5982121 https://kiwifarms.net/threads/byuu-byuu_nyan-setsunakun0.430...
- tiles 7y ago
  This is such a strange response. Byuu's two posts later in the thread contain several corrections, particularly on their alleged cartridge hoarding behavior. It invalidates the claims of the original post while not denying any of the evidence was true. A well sourced Wikipedia article can still be biased. The presence of sources isn't mutually exclusive with bias.
  - Cyberdog 7y ago
    > It invalidates the claims of the original post while not denying any of the evidence was true. So the evidence is still true, then? And the paragraph at the top of the OP states that it is slightly out of date. > A well sourced Wikipedia article can still be biased. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ I'm increasingly becoming convinced Wikipedia is a toxic garbage dump. The Wii U article states that it had the fewest game releases of any Nintendo console. I tried adding the words "…since the Virtual Boy" to turn that into a factually correct statement and it got reverted. I don't have the time to get into a slapfight with another editor about facts, so the incorrect statement remains. Whatever.
    - snvzz 7y ago
      I've found that sometimes it is better to add a {{fact}} macro to incorrect information, and let others do the hard work. Contributing to Wikipedia is unfortunately hard to navigate, with a lot of social trickery required just to get blatant incorrect information fixed.
- 0134340 7y ago
  >Posting information about someone One of the biggest problems is that anyone can make up the same username anywhere online and use it in false flag attempts to harm someone's reputation and the dramaqueens at Kiwifarm don't care as long as it's "verified" by their very ambiguous standards, something which has happened there before many times. >to stir up drama Ironic since the whole product they're selling there is drama and invoking it not only on their own boards but elsewhere.
- favorited 7y ago
  > and say gamer words what words are those?
  - Cyberdog 7y ago
    Certain slurs against a person's race or sexuality. They came to be called "gamer words" as a meme after PewDiePie dropped one while playing a game of PUBG live on stream.

dependenttypes 7y ago

There used to be a banner in that site that said that white-knighting was not allowed. I understood that to mean that if someone posted something refuting another post that was criticizing that person they would get banned. I would agree with you if kiwifarms was a truly free site that aimed to stay objective but this does not seem to be the case.

tiles 7y ago

"Held accountable" on the post seems to include moral depravity like "he posted anti-Trump tweets". I don't think that's really accurate here.