5 ms·

Organizing harassment campaigns and planning acts of violence, the bread and butter of Kiwi Farms, is not free speech. This website is accountable for the death

Organizing harassment campaigns and planning acts of violence, the bread and butter of Kiwi Farms, is not free speech. This website is accountable for the deaths of at least three people. They should have been de-platformed sooner. We cannot simply accept "free speech" as a value without question: it has to serve an underlying purpose as a tool with which our values are enacted. The purpose of free speech is to serve the best interests of society against bad actors, i.e. governments, who would use censorship to centralize power. Defending hate speech and organized violence contradicts the underlying purpose of free speech as a value in the first place. Free speech absolutists fail to see through the tool to the values beneath, to the detriment of society.

heartbeats 4y ago
The entire point here, though, is that the Farms vigorously dispute having done any such thing. How are you to determine who's right? To me, it seems by far fairer to make those decisions, as a society, via the court system and the laws, rather than by leaving them up to private companies.
- ddevault 4y ago
  There are a lot of questions lurking beneath the surface of your argument, many of which invoke difficult questions like the allocation of power and responsibility between the public and private sectors. I definitely think that we need stronger laws about hate speech and organized violence, and most definitely better enforcement. It's telling that the government will spare no cost to shut down a dark net drug market, but won't lift a finger to save trans lives from websites like this. So, we might find a solution to this problem in law, but we could probably write several books worth of material fully expanding on the implementation and implications. In any case, we cannot expect this solution to be implemented by breakfast tomorrow. What we might find tomorrow morning is that Kiwi Farms is responsible for another murder. Naturally, they will vigorously reject claims that it's a hate site: it's in their interests to portray themselves as such, and hate groups are not known for placing a high value on the truth. It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. We do not need a court's opinion to make this judgement, though I would welcome such an opinion nevertheless -- these people should be held accountable in a court of law. As a private business, CloudFlare enjoys the freedom to choose with whom it does business. If they were required by law to provide services indiscriminately, then they could not be held responsible. But that's not the case. No privilege comes without responsibility, and the means by which they exercise this freedom should be in accordance with their values. In terms of values, I expect them (1) to have values compatible with peaceful society, and (2) to act in accordance with those values. Should they fail to do so, it reflects poorly on the people responsible for making those decisions.
  - heartbeats 4y ago
    > It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. I don't think it's obvious. It sounds possible, sure, but they vigorously deny it, and when it comes to actual, falsifiable claims, I don't think the evidence is terribly strong. (For instance, the alleged "Kiwi Farms death list" contains people who did not even have an active thread on the forum). When you make a serious claim like this, it does seem like some more evidence is in order than "everyone knows it". > As a private business, CloudFlare enjoys the freedom to choose with whom it does business. If they were required by law to provide services indiscriminately, then they could not be held responsible. But that's not the case. No privilege comes without responsibility, and the means by which they exercise this freedom should be in accordance with their values. Then where does the limit go? Do you, as a general rule, support large monopoly corporations having veto rights over all public speech?
- prvit 4y ago
  Oh come on, this is absurd. Anyone who has ever browsed kiwifarms knows that the site is in fact dedicated to doing such things.
  - salawat 4y ago
    It should be trivial to produce that in a court of law, with substantive actionsble intelligrnce that saying something means it's going to happen. Except... In reality, horrible people say horrible things on the Internet, all the time, and if we have the Police running around constantly trying to protect one odious group from another, then perhaps it's better to wait until one group substantively commits a prosecutable offense, then deal with them, then. None of that happened. We went straight to mob justice. Again.
    - prvit 4y ago
      No mob justice here, just a private company choosing to not offer their services to a reprehensible organisation.
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> This website is accountable for the deaths of at least three people. They should have been de-platformed sooner. Oh, did the Twitter Jury return with a verdict already? I didn’t see Judge Musk tweet that the case had completed. Imagine if private companies started acting like this. You’d suddenly find your power shut off because they read one of your tweets and decided that you’d committed a hate crime for complaining about the rising energy prices… There is nothing even remotely related to criminal charges or the legal system involved in this case. The CEO of one company decided to censor a forum because he felt like it, without any due process, without even notifying the site.
- ddevault 4y ago
  Private companies are not, and have never been, required to observe due process. They are not required to enact free speech -- the government is. They can, and do, choose who they do business with, and are responsible for the choices they make. The right to choose to deny service to Kiwi Farms is part of a broader set of rights of association which are as highly prized by western society as free speech itself is. And, equipped with this freedom, the choices that they make are meaningful and they are subject to criticism for them. Your generalization is false -- utilities such as electricity are regulated by the government and provide a life-critical service. No one has suggested that we should shut off the heat for alleged bigots in the middle of winter.
  - heartbeats 4y ago
    Private companies are, in some countries, required to do just that. For instance, in Germany, banks have a legal obligation to provide people with basic accounts, even if they would not like it. I can't take seriously the idea that corporations have any human rights at all. Corporations are distinctly non-human, so the idea that CloudFlare has "freedom of association" seems nonsensical. If I run a newspaper and print bold-faced lies, that's (rarely) illegal, but if you run false advertising that's not permitted. I think this is a very large and unstated assumption. If you stick with it, where do you end up? For example, landlords are private corporations and not utilities. Should they be free to kick out alleged bigots, too? Should their banks? If all the private corporations band together to decide to deny you service, rendering you homeless, unemployed, etc., in what meaningful sense do you enjoy free speech?
quazar 4y ago
Link to one thread where users users are "planning acts of violence".

heartbeats 4y ago

The entire point here, though, is that the Farms vigorously dispute having done any such thing. How are you to determine who's right? To me, it seems by far fairer to make those decisions, as a society, via the court system and the laws, rather than by leaving them up to private companies.

ddevault 4y ago
There are a lot of questions lurking beneath the surface of your argument, many of which invoke difficult questions like the allocation of power and responsibility between the public and private sectors. I definitely think that we need stronger laws about hate speech and organized violence, and most definitely better enforcement. It's telling that the government will spare no cost to shut down a dark net drug market, but won't lift a finger to save trans lives from websites like this. So, we might find a solution to this problem in law, but we could probably write several books worth of material fully expanding on the implementation and implications. In any case, we cannot expect this solution to be implemented by breakfast tomorrow. What we might find tomorrow morning is that Kiwi Farms is responsible for another murder. Naturally, they will vigorously reject claims that it's a hate site: it's in their interests to portray themselves as such, and hate groups are not known for placing a high value on the truth. It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. We do not need a court's opinion to make this judgement, though I would welcome such an opinion nevertheless -- these people should be held accountable in a court of law. As a private business, CloudFlare enjoys the freedom to choose with whom it does business. If they were required by law to provide services indiscriminately, then they could not be held responsible. But that's not the case. No privilege comes without responsibility, and the means by which they exercise this freedom should be in accordance with their values. In terms of values, I expect them (1) to have values compatible with peaceful society, and (2) to act in accordance with those values. Should they fail to do so, it reflects poorly on the people responsible for making those decisions.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  > It's obvious to everyone else that they are, in fact, a hate site, and that their purpose is to organize harassment and violence. I don't think it's obvious. It sounds possible, sure, but they vigorously deny it, and when it comes to actual, falsifiable claims, I don't think the evidence is terribly strong. (For instance, the alleged "Kiwi Farms death list" contains people who did not even have an active thread on the forum). When you make a serious claim like this, it does seem like some more evidence is in order than "everyone knows it". > As a private business, CloudFlare enjoys the freedom to choose with whom it does business. If they were required by law to provide services indiscriminately, then they could not be held responsible. But that's not the case. No privilege comes without responsibility, and the means by which they exercise this freedom should be in accordance with their values. Then where does the limit go? Do you, as a general rule, support large monopoly corporations having veto rights over all public speech?
prvit 4y ago
Oh come on, this is absurd. Anyone who has ever browsed kiwifarms knows that the site is in fact dedicated to doing such things.
- salawat 4y ago
  It should be trivial to produce that in a court of law, with substantive actionsble intelligrnce that saying something means it's going to happen. Except... In reality, horrible people say horrible things on the Internet, all the time, and if we have the Police running around constantly trying to protect one odious group from another, then perhaps it's better to wait until one group substantively commits a prosecutable offense, then deal with them, then. None of that happened. We went straight to mob justice. Again.
  - prvit 4y ago
    No mob justice here, just a private company choosing to not offer their services to a reprehensible organisation.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

> This website is accountable for the deaths of at least three people. They should have been de-platformed sooner. Oh, did the Twitter Jury return with a verdict already? I didn’t see Judge Musk tweet that the case had completed. Imagine if private companies started acting like this. You’d suddenly find your power shut off because they read one of your tweets and decided that you’d committed a hate crime for complaining about the rising energy prices… There is nothing even remotely related to criminal charges or the legal system involved in this case. The CEO of one company decided to censor a forum because he felt like it, without any due process, without even notifying the site.

ddevault 4y ago
Private companies are not, and have never been, required to observe due process. They are not required to enact free speech -- the government is. They can, and do, choose who they do business with, and are responsible for the choices they make. The right to choose to deny service to Kiwi Farms is part of a broader set of rights of association which are as highly prized by western society as free speech itself is. And, equipped with this freedom, the choices that they make are meaningful and they are subject to criticism for them. Your generalization is false -- utilities such as electricity are regulated by the government and provide a life-critical service. No one has suggested that we should shut off the heat for alleged bigots in the middle of winter.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  Private companies are, in some countries, required to do just that. For instance, in Germany, banks have a legal obligation to provide people with basic accounts, even if they would not like it. I can't take seriously the idea that corporations have any human rights at all. Corporations are distinctly non-human, so the idea that CloudFlare has "freedom of association" seems nonsensical. If I run a newspaper and print bold-faced lies, that's (rarely) illegal, but if you run false advertising that's not permitted. I think this is a very large and unstated assumption. If you stick with it, where do you end up? For example, landlords are private corporations and not utilities. Should they be free to kick out alleged bigots, too? Should their banks? If all the private corporations band together to decide to deny you service, rendering you homeless, unemployed, etc., in what meaningful sense do you enjoy free speech?

quazar 4y ago

Link to one thread where users users are "planning acts of violence".