3 ms·

>So, when someone does a thing that's designed to hurt both Kiwifarms and MTG and your assumption is that KF is responsible? When kf doxxes someone, and she's

>So, when someone does a thing that's designed to hurt both Kiwifarms and MTG and your assumption is that KF is responsible? When kf doxxes someone, and she's swatted the next day, yeah I'll blame the site that posted her address the day before and is known for inciting swatting attacks. > That said if we do go down that road, FB, Twitter & co. should be first on the chopping block and I won't miss them. I don't follow, KF doesn't remove, and even tacitly (and not so tacitly) encourages, harassment, while that isn't true of FB or twitter or even reddit.

Natsu 4y ago
Does KF refer to the posters on the site, or the site itself? When you say "KF doxxes" I assume you mean the posters, but it's not clear and in that case they would generally have no liability from 3rd party posters. > I don't follow, KF doesn't remove, and even tacitly (and not so tacitly) encourages, harassment, while that isn't true of FB or twitter or even reddit. If "harassment" is the legal type (i.e. true threats), that's not first amendment protected and those who post it can be charged criminally. That's not generally something the platform is liable for. That said, FB and others have been sued in similar circumstances: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/04/12/mother-sues-facebook-instagram-snapchat-over-teen-sons-suicide/7290858001/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/04/12/mother-sues-f...
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. I've never made any claim about legal liability. I said that sites that support/encourage/facilitate the things that KF (as a site) does should not be supported. We are under no obligation to define morality based on legality. Like, your defense here seems to amount to "what they're doing isn't technically illegal", which, sure, but that's not a defense to most people.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    Well, the answer to "it's not illegal" is to change the law to define what should be illegal to make it match up with morality better. I conjecture that most such changes would possibly take down FB & Twitter, but I've already said that I don't really think that would be a net loss.

Natsu 4y ago

Does KF refer to the posters on the site, or the site itself? When you say "KF doxxes" I assume you mean the posters, but it's not clear and in that case they would generally have no liability from 3rd party posters. > I don't follow, KF doesn't remove, and even tacitly (and not so tacitly) encourages, harassment, while that isn't true of FB or twitter or even reddit. If "harassment" is the legal type (i.e. true threats), that's not first amendment protected and those who post it can be charged criminally. That's not generally something the platform is liable for. That said, FB and others have been sued in similar circumstances: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/04/12/mother-sues-facebook-instagram-snapchat-over-teen-sons-suicide/7290858001/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/04/12/mother-sues-f...

joshuamorton 4y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. I've never made any claim about legal liability. I said that sites that support/encourage/facilitate the things that KF (as a site) does should not be supported. We are under no obligation to define morality based on legality. Like, your defense here seems to amount to "what they're doing isn't technically illegal", which, sure, but that's not a defense to most people.
- Natsu 4y ago
  Well, the answer to "it's not illegal" is to change the law to define what should be illegal to make it match up with morality better. I conjecture that most such changes would possibly take down FB & Twitter, but I've already said that I don't really think that would be a net loss.