6 ms·

I find it strange how they weren't banned before. They already caused a few people to suicide.

hackerlight 4y ago
Why is this downvoted? It's true. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-keffals-anti-trans-rcna44834 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-... Free speech purists think that bullying people into suicide is categorically different to direct incitement to violence, despite that both of these cause the same outcome. This false dichotomy allows them to cling to their ideology.
- protomyth 4y ago
  Because if we banned sites for causing suicides then Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok would be off the internet.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Well I happen to think they should be off the internet, so you're preaching to the choir. But supposing I wasn't someone who thought that, what you're saying is disanalogous, given the ratio of healthy use cases to unhealthy ones is drastically different, and given that these larger platforms actually ban (albeit imperfectly enforced) a lot of the suicide-causing behavior that Kiwifarms allows.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    I think you’re making a stronger case for your opponents point than you think.
    - capitalsigma 4y ago
      Kids have been bullied into suicide at school. Do you think we should ban schools? Or forbid cafeterias? Some kids feel trauma over being picked last for sports teams -- should we ban sports?
      - krainboltgreene 4y ago
        We do actually act against kids or teachers who cause other kids to commit suicide. I don't know why you've decided that we don't.
        capitalsigma 4y ago
        We act against kids and teachers, yeah, but we don't act against the place where they gather (i.e. the school, the playground, whatever). Similarly, we should act against the people who spread hate on Instagram, not the platform -- not advocate for kids to have fewer ways to socialize.
        google234123 4y ago
        Apparently 9% of teens cyberbully themselves. Seems like there is a bigger problem with the system https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-09-02/digital-self-harm-when-teens-cyberbully-themselves https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-09-02/...
        krainboltgreene 4y ago
        Why is there a problem competition? Can we not solve multiple problems? Is there a problem solving drought?
      - sweetheart 4y ago
        I think if something directly causes substantial increases to suicide rates, then it should be changed so as to not do that. If such change means that the thing no longer exists, then c’est la vie.
        capitalsigma 4y ago
        So the acceptable rate of teen suicide was fixed at some point in the past, and everything is OK as long as we stay at that number? Why stop there?
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    they too should be held responsible if there is a failure to moderate and report flagged content in my city a school was closed entirely due to administrators failure to act on reported abuse
  - tharne 4y ago
    > Because if we banned sites for causing suicides then Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok would be off the internet. You'd have to ban mainstream news outlets for the exact same reason.
- dmatech 4y ago
  Cyberbullying is tricky. A New York law intending to criminalize it was struck down as overly broad and an infringement on 1A. It is categorically different from "incitement to imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Marquan_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Marquan_M.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    They are categorically the same when it comes to the moral question, because they're both spoken words that cause someone's wrongful death. They are categorically different when it comes to the practical question of law regarding how we can come up with a system that doesn't pose undue unintended risks to free expression. In arguing the latter, free speech purists are often incapable of communicating an understanding of the former.
    - platz 4y ago
      law is usually more specific and has rules about exactly what is a "cause". In the loose sense you've used here such a rule could be invoked for many things. "Cause" and "Effect" typically need more precise language or rules on what context they apply to.
- selfmodruntime 4y ago
  Real life bullying is complicated because you can hardly avoid it. Work or a school are real places you have to visit. The same is not true for anything internet. When I was growing up as a teen the internet was just about to grow into the first e-commerce bubble around y2k. Not linking your real identity to online accounts was common sense and thought to people everywhere. People seem to have forgotten this. The internet is not a real place. You enable yourself to be cyberbullied by sharing your identity. It can be entirely avoided, easily.
  - jameslars 4y ago
    This essentially reads like a "what were they wearing?" argument against rape victims.
  - fsociety 4y ago
    The internet is a real place, and the smallest amount of information can identify you here. It is a silly proposition to try to force all internet users into total anonymity because they may be doxed by a forum like KF.
    - selfmodruntime 4y ago
      I‘ve said my fair share of controversial things on different accounts and I‘ve never been successfully identified. How do I do it? By not giving out any personal information. It really is that simple.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >Free speech purists think that bullying people into suicide is categorically different to direct incitement to violence, despite that both of these cause the same outcome Are you sure that you actually want a world where mens rea plays no role in criminal determination? You're not just making a free speech critique here.

Why is this downvoted? It's true. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-keffals-anti-trans-rcna44834 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cloudflare-kiwi-farms-... Free speech purists think that bullying people into suicide is categorically different to direct incitement to violence, despite that both of these cause the same outcome. This false dichotomy allows them to cling to their ideology.

protomyth 4y ago
Because if we banned sites for causing suicides then Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok would be off the internet.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Well I happen to think they should be off the internet, so you're preaching to the choir. But supposing I wasn't someone who thought that, what you're saying is disanalogous, given the ratio of healthy use cases to unhealthy ones is drastically different, and given that these larger platforms actually ban (albeit imperfectly enforced) a lot of the suicide-causing behavior that Kiwifarms allows.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  I think you’re making a stronger case for your opponents point than you think.
  - capitalsigma 4y ago
    Kids have been bullied into suicide at school. Do you think we should ban schools? Or forbid cafeterias? Some kids feel trauma over being picked last for sports teams -- should we ban sports?
    - krainboltgreene 4y ago
      We do actually act against kids or teachers who cause other kids to commit suicide. I don't know why you've decided that we don't.
      - capitalsigma 4y ago
        We act against kids and teachers, yeah, but we don't act against the place where they gather (i.e. the school, the playground, whatever). Similarly, we should act against the people who spread hate on Instagram, not the platform -- not advocate for kids to have fewer ways to socialize.
      - google234123 4y ago
        Apparently 9% of teens cyberbully themselves. Seems like there is a bigger problem with the system https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-09-02/digital-self-harm-when-teens-cyberbully-themselves https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-09-02/...
        krainboltgreene 4y ago
        Why is there a problem competition? Can we not solve multiple problems? Is there a problem solving drought?
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      I think if something directly causes substantial increases to suicide rates, then it should be changed so as to not do that. If such change means that the thing no longer exists, then c’est la vie.
      - capitalsigma 4y ago
        So the acceptable rate of teen suicide was fixed at some point in the past, and everything is OK as long as we stay at that number? Why stop there?
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  they too should be held responsible if there is a failure to moderate and report flagged content in my city a school was closed entirely due to administrators failure to act on reported abuse
- tharne 4y ago
  > Because if we banned sites for causing suicides then Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok would be off the internet. You'd have to ban mainstream news outlets for the exact same reason.
dmatech 4y ago
Cyberbullying is tricky. A New York law intending to criminalize it was struck down as overly broad and an infringement on 1A. It is categorically different from "incitement to imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Marquan_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Marquan_M.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  They are categorically the same when it comes to the moral question, because they're both spoken words that cause someone's wrongful death. They are categorically different when it comes to the practical question of law regarding how we can come up with a system that doesn't pose undue unintended risks to free expression. In arguing the latter, free speech purists are often incapable of communicating an understanding of the former.
  - platz 4y ago
    law is usually more specific and has rules about exactly what is a "cause". In the loose sense you've used here such a rule could be invoked for many things. "Cause" and "Effect" typically need more precise language or rules on what context they apply to.
selfmodruntime 4y ago
Real life bullying is complicated because you can hardly avoid it. Work or a school are real places you have to visit. The same is not true for anything internet. When I was growing up as a teen the internet was just about to grow into the first e-commerce bubble around y2k. Not linking your real identity to online accounts was common sense and thought to people everywhere. People seem to have forgotten this. The internet is not a real place. You enable yourself to be cyberbullied by sharing your identity. It can be entirely avoided, easily.
- jameslars 4y ago
  This essentially reads like a "what were they wearing?" argument against rape victims.
- fsociety 4y ago
  The internet is a real place, and the smallest amount of information can identify you here. It is a silly proposition to try to force all internet users into total anonymity because they may be doxed by a forum like KF.
  - selfmodruntime 4y ago
    I‘ve said my fair share of controversial things on different accounts and I‘ve never been successfully identified. How do I do it? By not giving out any personal information. It really is that simple.
yanderekko 4y ago
>Free speech purists think that bullying people into suicide is categorically different to direct incitement to violence, despite that both of these cause the same outcome Are you sure that you actually want a world where mens rea plays no role in criminal determination? You're not just making a free speech critique here.