3 ms·

You're focusing a lot on "they", and I don't really get why. You can instead focus on the argument being made and at that point it'll be a lot easier to engage.

You're focusing a lot on "they", and I don't really get why. You can instead focus on the argument being made and at that point it'll be a lot easier to engage. If you're trying to say that we shouldn't make decisions based on the feelings of vague interest groups, ok, but I wasn't making the argument that we should.

roenxi 4y ago
Your argument seems to be that it is possible to characterise an extreme site in some sort of systemic manner. But your argument has a gaping hole in it - you haven't identified what that systemic manner is. You initially started with a "well its obvious to all of us" point. That is a poor foundation, because you literally can't identify who "us" is. And you don't have a counter to numerous groups - also part of this "us" of humans who make decisions - who simply don't agree with you on basic things. Which is likely to include whether Kiwifarms is an acceptable site. The little handwave where you appeal to what we all know may seem minor to you, but that is literally the failing point for the entire strategy of benign censorship. You've missed something important here to the point where your argument is basically collapsing - the world is a lot more diverse than your frame and argument are able to deal with. You also haven't articulated how you know so much about Kiwifarms and what actually happens on the site. I suspect you've read a few articles by people you feel are credible, or noted a mob forming and decided that mobs don't form without a good reason. If either of those is the case, let me assure you that we disagree about how easy it is to get to the truth - because that is not enough evidence for me to feel confident Cloudflare will get an 80% hit rate with their strategy. Mobs and journalists are both really bad at getting things right. Now I do think it is acceptable for Cloudflare to occasionally boot good actors off the internet for no reason, but the point stands - they are wading in to water where they will make regular mistakes, and those mistakes will start to take on a political tinge as the radicals amongst us notice that they can get away with a few "mistakes" and silence people they find intolerable. Plus if they're going to start booting people they're going to have to justify themselves a lot more - there are worse than Kiwifarms out there.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  > Your argument seems to be that it is possible to characterise an extreme site in some sort of systemic manner. My argument is exactly the opposite. That there are lots of grey areas that can not be categorized, but Kiwifarms is not one of thsoe grey areas, as Cloudflare discovered when they started getting dox'd by KF. There's no need for a system here, KF is very squarely a horrible site. The rest of your post with regards to my argument is obviously moot since it is the opposite. I am very familiar with KF and have been for quite a few years. I actually haven't kept up (much) on KF in recent years, but I saw that people were pushing for its removal and I was very glad to see it. As for other sites being "way worse", there are a few... but not that many, actually. Most of the really bad sites are relegated to onion and are much harder to access. Those are really more of a problem for the FBI at that level of shit. I'd advocate for them to be taken down too, of course, if they were worse and also using CF or other services.

roenxi 4y ago

Your argument seems to be that it is possible to characterise an extreme site in some sort of systemic manner. But your argument has a gaping hole in it - you haven't identified what that systemic manner is. You initially started with a "well its obvious to all of us" point. That is a poor foundation, because you literally can't identify who "us" is. And you don't have a counter to numerous groups - also part of this "us" of humans who make decisions - who simply don't agree with you on basic things. Which is likely to include whether Kiwifarms is an acceptable site. The little handwave where you appeal to what we all know may seem minor to you, but that is literally the failing point for the entire strategy of benign censorship. You've missed something important here to the point where your argument is basically collapsing - the world is a lot more diverse than your frame and argument are able to deal with. You also haven't articulated how you know so much about Kiwifarms and what actually happens on the site. I suspect you've read a few articles by people you feel are credible, or noted a mob forming and decided that mobs don't form without a good reason. If either of those is the case, let me assure you that we disagree about how easy it is to get to the truth - because that is not enough evidence for me to feel confident Cloudflare will get an 80% hit rate with their strategy. Mobs and journalists are both really bad at getting things right. Now I do think it is acceptable for Cloudflare to occasionally boot good actors off the internet for no reason, but the point stands - they are wading in to water where they will make regular mistakes, and those mistakes will start to take on a political tinge as the radicals amongst us notice that they can get away with a few "mistakes" and silence people they find intolerable. Plus if they're going to start booting people they're going to have to justify themselves a lot more - there are worse than Kiwifarms out there.

staticassertion 4y ago
> Your argument seems to be that it is possible to characterise an extreme site in some sort of systemic manner. My argument is exactly the opposite. That there are lots of grey areas that can not be categorized, but Kiwifarms is not one of thsoe grey areas, as Cloudflare discovered when they started getting dox'd by KF. There's no need for a system here, KF is very squarely a horrible site. The rest of your post with regards to my argument is obviously moot since it is the opposite. I am very familiar with KF and have been for quite a few years. I actually haven't kept up (much) on KF in recent years, but I saw that people were pushing for its removal and I was very glad to see it. As for other sites being "way worse", there are a few... but not that many, actually. Most of the really bad sites are relegated to onion and are much harder to access. Those are really more of a problem for the FBI at that level of shit. I'd advocate for them to be taken down too, of course, if they were worse and also using CF or other services.