17 ms·

I'm not here to define hate speech, and I think that you'd agree that HN was not designed to encourage and promote hate speech. You absolutely can not say the

I'm not here to define hate speech, and I think that you'd agree that HN was not designed to encourage and promote hate speech. You absolutely can not say the same thing of Kiwifarms. Let's not be deliberately obtuse here.

nemo44x 4y ago
There are different degrees, sure. And this place has moderation. But what is the line? Be precise and avoid arbitrary definitions. There are threads here where people call for wealthy peoples heads. Did that cross a line? Could we say it about other people?
- fullstop 4y ago
  That is still not the primary purpose of HN. Those comments should be flagged, of course, but they in no way align with the specific purpose of HN. Kiwifarms was founded to troll and harass a specific webcomic author. From there it evolved to target and harass specific people or communities. Surely you see the difference here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 4y ago
  > There are threads here where people call for wealthy peoples heads. Did that cross a line? Could we say it about other people? Are they targeting specific rich people in a dedicated and persistent fashion to the point that said rich persons kill themselves? No, that's not happening. I've seen posts of the type you've described. They're almost always dead/banned/shadowbanned. They're much less frequent than any one of anti-black, anti-gay, anti-jew, or anti-trans comments... which are almost always dead/banned/shadowbanned as well. This site does not remotely compare to KF.
- pornel 4y ago
  You're falling for the heap paradox: If you remove a grain of sand from a heap, tell precisely at which grain of sand it stops being a heap. You can't? Therefore it's impossible to tell if something is a heap of sand! QED
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    That just says "don't use the word 'heap' for anything normative", surely not "let's hope what we think is a heap is universal consensus"? I support the current thing though
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > Be precise and avoid arbitrary definitions. Why should we? Society has been doing pretty fine with some fuzziness until now. Sometimes something really goes to far and they end up not hosted anymore. That’s the system working, not it failing to work. Well, that came a bit slowly for kiwifarms sadly but I’m glade sanity prevailed in the end.
concordDance 4y ago
Depends on what you mean by "hate speech". It's a literally Orwellian term designed to be bad but not specific.
- fullstop 4y ago
  In this case, the entire forum was created to target and harass a specific person. From there it evolved to target and harass specific people / communities. As I said in my initial response, we all have a line in the sand that we draw. For me, Kiwifarms crosses that line. Maybe you're okay with a website dedicated to harassing and doxxing specific people. I am not.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Do you agree that Daily Stormer should not have been banned? They were created to opine about white ethno-nationalism, etc. and not to target or doxx or harass specific people. Is your line moving now?
    - googlryas 4y ago
      They never said their only line was doxxing or harassing.
    - fullstop 4y ago
      Given that they also engage in targeting, harassing, and doxxing specific people, yes, they should have been banned. My line has not moved.
      - spoonjim 4y ago
        What’s your opinion on sites not targeting specific individuals? Like, “people with Property X have no place in civilized society” where readers of this site occasionally went on killing sprees of people in the category?
        4y ago
cowtools 4y ago
So you want to enforce restrictions on hate speech, but you have no clear boundary as to what "hate speech" really is?
- fullstop 4y ago
  Keep reading, but here's the crux of the matter: HN was made to discuss tech topics. KF was made to harass and doxx a specific target. I'm not here to explicitly define "hate speech", but I think that we can agree that KF has crossed that line into hate speech. Unless you're cool with encouraging harassment and doxxing, that is.
fortran77 4y ago
I see a lot of vile speech directed toward me on Hacker News.
- treis 4y ago
  Can you give examples?
  - fortran77 4y ago
    People calling for my people and my nation to be wiped off the map. (And I don't try to get Hacker News blocked by their ISP or cache provider. I understand that an open forum will have speech like this.)
    - treis 4y ago
      I mean actual links so we can see what you're talking about
      - fortran77 4y ago
        One of many, many comments saying that the country I hold a citizenship in should be eliminated; the land it exists on is "occupied" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701383 Threats that what happened in Germany in the 30s will happen again, and it's deserved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701442 People blaming Jews/Jewish conspiracies for various actions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32692308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32692308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32691199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32691199 I'd like to point out that I understand what's "vile" to one person isn't to another. I've had my posts reported as "hate speech" on reddit for saying that "the Fat Acceptance movement is dangerous" and that "Obesity is wrong." Banned speech should have a very high bar -- direct, specific threats of physical harm.
        worried4future 4y ago
mynameishere 4y ago
If you cannot define a term, you should not use it. I'm surprised that you're so honest about your irrationality, though. Normally, you would "define" hate speech as follows: "Weasel term, weasel term, weasel term" and that would be that. I would define hate speech as speech that directs hatred at a particular group. For instance, Joe Biden recently gave a state speech (The "Gates of Hell" speech) that was completely choked with hatred for a group. Shrug. I have no interest in banning this, whether from the "president" or from anon. My understanding of Kiwifarms is that they basically just make fun of idiot liberals--a sport on endless grounds. If you gave your honest definition of hate speech it would likely be "People who disagree with me and make me look bad showing how stupid or wrong I am."
- fullstop 4y ago
  Look, man, if you can't agree that people shouldn't target, harass and doxx people then we have no common ground to continue this conversation.
  - worried4future 4y ago
    I don't think we should target, harass and doxx people, therefore I do not do those things. That doesn't mean that I think we should censor entire websites because they are sometimes used as platforms to do those kinds of things.
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      Kiwi Farms was not "sometimes" used to target, harass, and doxx. It was the entire purpose of the site.
      - worried4future 4y ago
        When I visited it, some time ago, it mostly seemed like a lot of angsty teens shitposting. My thoroughly unscientific analysis of the situation seemed like it was about 98% bullshit posts and maybe 2% of the posts I found truly objectionable (mostly jew/black hate) but not illegal. I'm not doubting that there is some illegal stuff there, nor that there is some truly vile content, but, I don't even think it's in the majority on a post-level basis.

nemo44x 4y ago

There are different degrees, sure. And this place has moderation. But what is the line? Be precise and avoid arbitrary definitions. There are threads here where people call for wealthy peoples heads. Did that cross a line? Could we say it about other people?

fullstop 4y ago
That is still not the primary purpose of HN. Those comments should be flagged, of course, but they in no way align with the specific purpose of HN. Kiwifarms was founded to troll and harass a specific webcomic author. From there it evolved to target and harass specific people or communities. Surely you see the difference here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 4y ago
> There are threads here where people call for wealthy peoples heads. Did that cross a line? Could we say it about other people? Are they targeting specific rich people in a dedicated and persistent fashion to the point that said rich persons kill themselves? No, that's not happening. I've seen posts of the type you've described. They're almost always dead/banned/shadowbanned. They're much less frequent than any one of anti-black, anti-gay, anti-jew, or anti-trans comments... which are almost always dead/banned/shadowbanned as well. This site does not remotely compare to KF.
pornel 4y ago
You're falling for the heap paradox: If you remove a grain of sand from a heap, tell precisely at which grain of sand it stops being a heap. You can't? Therefore it's impossible to tell if something is a heap of sand! QED
- throwaway290 4y ago
  That just says "don't use the word 'heap' for anything normative", surely not "let's hope what we think is a heap is universal consensus"? I support the current thing though
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Be precise and avoid arbitrary definitions. Why should we? Society has been doing pretty fine with some fuzziness until now. Sometimes something really goes to far and they end up not hosted anymore. That’s the system working, not it failing to work. Well, that came a bit slowly for kiwifarms sadly but I’m glade sanity prevailed in the end.

concordDance 4y ago

Depends on what you mean by "hate speech". It's a literally Orwellian term designed to be bad but not specific.

fullstop 4y ago
In this case, the entire forum was created to target and harass a specific person. From there it evolved to target and harass specific people / communities. As I said in my initial response, we all have a line in the sand that we draw. For me, Kiwifarms crosses that line. Maybe you're okay with a website dedicated to harassing and doxxing specific people. I am not.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Do you agree that Daily Stormer should not have been banned? They were created to opine about white ethno-nationalism, etc. and not to target or doxx or harass specific people. Is your line moving now?
  - googlryas 4y ago
    They never said their only line was doxxing or harassing.
  - fullstop 4y ago
    Given that they also engage in targeting, harassing, and doxxing specific people, yes, they should have been banned. My line has not moved.
    - spoonjim 4y ago
      What’s your opinion on sites not targeting specific individuals? Like, “people with Property X have no place in civilized society” where readers of this site occasionally went on killing sprees of people in the category?
      - 4y ago

cowtools 4y ago

So you want to enforce restrictions on hate speech, but you have no clear boundary as to what "hate speech" really is?

fullstop 4y ago
Keep reading, but here's the crux of the matter: HN was made to discuss tech topics. KF was made to harass and doxx a specific target. I'm not here to explicitly define "hate speech", but I think that we can agree that KF has crossed that line into hate speech. Unless you're cool with encouraging harassment and doxxing, that is.

fortran77 4y ago

I see a lot of vile speech directed toward me on Hacker News.

treis 4y ago
Can you give examples?
- fortran77 4y ago
  People calling for my people and my nation to be wiped off the map. (And I don't try to get Hacker News blocked by their ISP or cache provider. I understand that an open forum will have speech like this.)
  - treis 4y ago
    I mean actual links so we can see what you're talking about
    - fortran77 4y ago
      One of many, many comments saying that the country I hold a citizenship in should be eliminated; the land it exists on is "occupied" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701383 Threats that what happened in Germany in the 30s will happen again, and it's deserved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701442 People blaming Jews/Jewish conspiracies for various actions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32692308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32692308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32691199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32691199 I'd like to point out that I understand what's "vile" to one person isn't to another. I've had my posts reported as "hate speech" on reddit for saying that "the Fat Acceptance movement is dangerous" and that "Obesity is wrong." Banned speech should have a very high bar -- direct, specific threats of physical harm.
      - worried4future 4y ago

mynameishere 4y ago

If you cannot define a term, you should not use it. I'm surprised that you're so honest about your irrationality, though. Normally, you would "define" hate speech as follows: "Weasel term, weasel term, weasel term" and that would be that. I would define hate speech as speech that directs hatred at a particular group. For instance, Joe Biden recently gave a state speech (The "Gates of Hell" speech) that was completely choked with hatred for a group. Shrug. I have no interest in banning this, whether from the "president" or from anon. My understanding of Kiwifarms is that they basically just make fun of idiot liberals--a sport on endless grounds. If you gave your honest definition of hate speech it would likely be "People who disagree with me and make me look bad showing how stupid or wrong I am."

fullstop 4y ago
Look, man, if you can't agree that people shouldn't target, harass and doxx people then we have no common ground to continue this conversation.
- worried4future 4y ago
  I don't think we should target, harass and doxx people, therefore I do not do those things. That doesn't mean that I think we should censor entire websites because they are sometimes used as platforms to do those kinds of things.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    Kiwi Farms was not "sometimes" used to target, harass, and doxx. It was the entire purpose of the site.
    - worried4future 4y ago
      When I visited it, some time ago, it mostly seemed like a lot of angsty teens shitposting. My thoroughly unscientific analysis of the situation seemed like it was about 98% bullshit posts and maybe 2% of the posts I found truly objectionable (mostly jew/black hate) but not illegal. I'm not doubting that there is some illegal stuff there, nor that there is some truly vile content, but, I don't even think it's in the majority on a post-level basis.