7 ms·

Official statement from KF on Aug 26th: > What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can g

Official statement from KF on Aug 26th: > What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and nobody is allowed to say anything about it. Wow very neutral site with no agenda here

bakugo 4y ago
- QuinnWilton 4y ago
  It's difficult to take comments like this in good faith when the Github profile linked on your account prominently features your signature on a letter calling for Richard Stallman to be reinstated to the FSF after his resignation, following his comments defending sex with minors and child pornography.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bakugo 4y ago
    Knowing that my comment had such an impact on you that you went through my profile AND posted a screenshot of it to twitter made me smile :) I'd leave a comment about your own profiles but I think they speak for themselves...
squabbles 4y ago
Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.
- a_shovel 4y ago
  Do you think that supports the claims made above?
  - beneboi 4y ago
    yes, ofcourse
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- FrecklySunbeam 4y ago
  - throwrqX 4y ago
    That may be your opinion but lots of parents would not agree with it.
    - ygjb 4y ago
      Yeah, but not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. This is generally recognized, and the reason why there is increasing clarification of the boundaries between the rights of parents and the rights of children. It's the reason that forced marriage and child brides have been outlawed in many countries. It's also the reason why child labour and child welfare, and protective services for children exist. Should someone be providing HRT to children? Generally no. Has the child been prescribed that medication, and the parents are refusing, unable to, or actively preventing the child from getting that medication? Absolutely! If this was in relation to insulin, antibiotics, or any other generally accepted medical prescription, the individual would be lauded. Because of transphobia and ignorance, sites like kiwifarms are being targetted by a bunch of relentless shitweasels who are hiding behind Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, something which Cloudflare is under absolutely no legal requirement to provide. I don't want tech companies to become the arbiters of free speech, but I also don't think companies are obligated to provide services to a website owned by a person who gleefully celebrated the suicide of a victim of harassment. Now that I am not an employee there anymore, one thing I am absolutely thrilled to say is that the Fastly approach with a Good Neighbour policy is awesome, and that alone (among many awesome things over the 5 years I was there) makes it a better company to work for than CloudFlare.
      - throwrqX 4y ago
        There's nothing in the original comment to suggest parents are ignoring the orders of a doctor.
        4y ago
- nervlord 4y ago
sieabahlpark 4y ago
Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?
- FrecklySunbeam 4y ago
  He’s talking about transgender people, not priests
  - psyc 4y ago
    And that just makes all the difference, don't it. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.
    - llbeansandrice 4y ago
      Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?
throwrqX 4y ago
There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.
ta1235414335 4y ago
The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.
rndgermandude 4y ago
They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide? This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.
- CJefferson 4y ago
  Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)? I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.
    - CJefferson 4y ago
      It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.
      - naasking 4y ago
        So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts? Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.
psyc 4y ago
omginternets 4y ago
I don't see anything about wanting to drive people to suicide.
_vvaw 4y ago

bakugo 4y ago

QuinnWilton 4y ago
It's difficult to take comments like this in good faith when the Github profile linked on your account prominently features your signature on a letter calling for Richard Stallman to be reinstated to the FSF after his resignation, following his comments defending sex with minors and child pornography.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bakugo 4y ago
  Knowing that my comment had such an impact on you that you went through my profile AND posted a screenshot of it to twitter made me smile :) I'd leave a comment about your own profiles but I think they speak for themselves...

squabbles 4y ago

Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

a_shovel 4y ago
Do you think that supports the claims made above?
- beneboi 4y ago
  yes, ofcourse
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
FrecklySunbeam 4y ago
- throwrqX 4y ago
  That may be your opinion but lots of parents would not agree with it.
  - ygjb 4y ago
    Yeah, but not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. This is generally recognized, and the reason why there is increasing clarification of the boundaries between the rights of parents and the rights of children. It's the reason that forced marriage and child brides have been outlawed in many countries. It's also the reason why child labour and child welfare, and protective services for children exist. Should someone be providing HRT to children? Generally no. Has the child been prescribed that medication, and the parents are refusing, unable to, or actively preventing the child from getting that medication? Absolutely! If this was in relation to insulin, antibiotics, or any other generally accepted medical prescription, the individual would be lauded. Because of transphobia and ignorance, sites like kiwifarms are being targetted by a bunch of relentless shitweasels who are hiding behind Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, something which Cloudflare is under absolutely no legal requirement to provide. I don't want tech companies to become the arbiters of free speech, but I also don't think companies are obligated to provide services to a website owned by a person who gleefully celebrated the suicide of a victim of harassment. Now that I am not an employee there anymore, one thing I am absolutely thrilled to say is that the Fastly approach with a Good Neighbour policy is awesome, and that alone (among many awesome things over the 5 years I was there) makes it a better company to work for than CloudFlare.
    - throwrqX 4y ago
      There's nothing in the original comment to suggest parents are ignoring the orders of a doctor.
      - 4y ago
nervlord 4y ago

sieabahlpark 4y ago

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?

FrecklySunbeam 4y ago
He’s talking about transgender people, not priests
- psyc 4y ago
  And that just makes all the difference, don't it. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?

throwrqX 4y ago

There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.

ta1235414335 4y ago

The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.

rndgermandude 4y ago

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide? This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.

CJefferson 4y ago
Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)? I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.
- naasking 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.
    - naasking 4y ago
      So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts? Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.

psyc 4y ago

omginternets 4y ago

I don't see anything about wanting to drive people to suicide.

_vvaw 4y ago