5 ms·

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 fa

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.

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.