20 ms·

I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example

I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. I always talk about the wild west of the late 90's when the Internet was brand new. My colleagues and I all talked about the myriad sketchy ways we could make money. We chose not to. It's as simple as that. If you want to develop something you think is beneficial to society, don't support bad behavior and certainly not dangerous or illegal behavior. This idea that a "dangerous idea" should somehow be a protected normality is ridiculous. Society has limits. Get used to it.

philippejara 4y ago
Well, doxing by public means seemed to be pretty open and shut yes, but while there are accusations galore of swatting I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence of them being to blame for it, and on paper they actively prohibit illegal things of that sort, for whatever that's worth. Hell the obvious false flag on the congresswomen straight up saying it was a specific user on the forum should be enough to cast suspicions on all these accusations as far as I'm concerned and at least expect some proof, some archive, something.
charcircuit 4y ago
- sonofhans 4y ago
  > Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but … There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. > the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums. This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer. > In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >There’s no “but” here There is because I wrote it there. But is used to show contrast. I was contrasting how there was doxing and there wasn't swatting. >doxxing is unethical and illegal It may be unethical to you, but it is ethical to me. Doxxing is not illegal in the United States. >This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. I see the documentation and preservation as a good thing. Not everyone has to share the same opinion as me. People who don't want to see this stuff can not visit the site. >This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod It doesn't glorify it anymore than wikipedia glorifies the historical events it has articles about. >The forum provides the means That doesn't mean the forum should be responsible. If Is someone googles a person's name and their address shows up does that mean Google is responsible for the person being swatted? In my opinion, no it isn't. >glorifies the result The forum can't control how people respond to the event. No one is forcing people to commented negatively or positively or even at all about it. Even without the Kiwi Farms it would likely be talked about somewhere else. >they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer They don't implicitly do this either. The community in general doesn't swat people. Yes, I'm sure you can find some exception, but I don't believe a community should be killed just because there are some bad people who claim to be a part of it in it. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance A link isn't an argument. Are you trying to say that free speech is bad and that we should censor people to avoid the subset of acceptable speech from changing? I personally am pro free speech and anti censorship so we disagree on these things if that was what you were trying to say.
cowtools 4y ago
Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. It used to be that all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting. People didn't use to have public internet identities like they do today- probably because there wasn't any way to profit from owning a public identity or from harvesting the data of others. Maybe people don't remember that since reddit (and others) ate up all the small forums and made them advertiser friendly. One of these "sketchy ways to make money" is to abuse the networks with DDoS attacks and racketeering- on either the protection side (CloudFlare, etc.) or the offensive side (botnets, etc.)
- masklinn 4y ago
  > Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. "Generally" is an important word here. So is "should". That speech "should generally" be free does not mean all speech is always acceptable. As the saying goes, your freedom to act ends where my nose begins. When a site is used to organize and synchronise harassment for months, to the at least tacit allowance and at most open encouragement of the site's management, it is way beyond where noses begin. > It used to be that all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting. That is a level of nonsense and whataboutism I've rarely seen.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      We all know where this line of dialog goes. Someone posts the thing and then you or someone else responds with, "it's clearly a joke," a "one off," "doesn't speak for all of KF," "not a regular user," "not affiliated with KF," "doesn't actually cause harm," or any other response. Sorry but the pro-KF well has been poisoned - ironically by KF users and supporters themselves. It's an absolute self punch in the face. Why don't you describe what your evidentiary level of acceptibility is first and then we provide the evidence? I'm asking because, honestly, I don't think it exists. I dont think any level of evidence would be satisfactory. Happy to be proven wrong though.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue Nitpick: it is a free speech issue. It’s just not a First Amendment concern. Your broader point stands: rights must balance; it’s perfectly fair for the freedom of assembly to peacefully balance someone freedom of speech.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  I agree - you have the right to not go some place where you don't want to be. You do not have the right to convince a fire department to stop protecting a house so you can burn it down in peace. To think this situation is anything BUT that is pure hypocrisy.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > this situation is anything BUT that is pure hypocrisy Fires kill people. As do bombs. As in bomb threats levied to intimidate someone into not speaking. Nobody is dying because Kiwi Farms is being DDOS’d. If there is a side antithetical to free speech in this discussion, it’s the group threatening to assault people whose speech they disagree with. Not those asking them to take their business elsewhere.
Cyberdog 4y ago
- karlshea 4y ago
  ? https://www.businessinsider.com/kiwi-farms-trans-activists-mtg-swatting-trolling-website-offline-2022-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/kiwi-farms-trans-activists-m...
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    - wickedsickeune 4y ago
      What is the motive of the lie? To shut down Kiwi Farms?
      - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        <MrKrabs>Money.</MrKrabs> They aren't actively lying or even putting in effort to lie for the sake of it. They just aren't putting in the effort to uncover the truth and explaining things beyond outrage bait. A few clickbait articles help generate clicks among a majority crowd that doesn't even know what KF is, and will have forgotten by tomorrow. They just care about the clicks. Which leads to millions of half-truths which are far more complicated in depth, but most people aren't going through the effort to criticize what they read. They just want the quick drama to talk about and go on with their day. Anyone who's read a magazine intended for the opposite gender can tell most of the articles regarding their own gender is largely bogus half-truths missing nuance. It's no different in most other spaces, but it's not as obvious when you don't have expertise on the matter yourself.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      You know the site was public when it was still up, right? Look at the evidence Keffals collected, for example: https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1560375267721363456 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1560375267721363456
_vvaw 4y ago
In terms of SWATing, harassment, and "driving people to suicide" this is a false impression, one that is intentionally spread by the site's detractors. SWATing and harassment is strictly banned on Kiwi Farms. The site owner aggressively removes such posts and cooperates with law enforcement. The leader of the campaign to take down Kiwi Farms is Keffals, a transsexual Twitch streamer with a large underage audience. Kiwi Farms has documented Keffals’ sexualized interactions with underage members of her community, as well as her history in porn and online interactions with several open pedophiles. Some believe this is why she wants the site nuked. See archived copy of the Kiwi Farms thread for documentation of Keffals' encouragement of doxing and SWATing, sexual grooming of minors on the “Catboy Ranch” Discord server, and her website which instructs minors on how to secretly obtain and self-dose cross-sex hormones behind parents’ backs: https://archive.ph/HY4hK https://archive.ph/HY4hK The sketchy online pharmacy Keffals’ DIY HRT Directory promotes sells cross-sex hormones marketed to children, with holofoil anime lolita box art and labels that say “keep away from parents”: https://archive.ph/zZMRp https://archive.ph/zZMRp The medical consequences of a confused child self-dosing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones outside parental and medical supervision can be sterilizing, irreversible, and lifelong. Keffals promotes the DIY HRT Directory on Twitter and Twitch to a huge audience of underaged viewers. None of these details about Keffals were mentioned in WaPo or NBC accounts of this story. It is incredibly dismaying to see Keffals doing this to children, well-documented and for the most part out in the open, and realize that no one in the news media cares. === EDIT: In response to a comment below... KF's owner refused the New Zealand's government command to remove Brenton Tarrant's manifesto and shooting video. This demand was not backed up by American law. He cooperates with law enforcement requests for information on criminal threats and illegal material posted to Kiwi Farms.
- ChicagoDave 4y ago
  Got five kids. If any of them were trans, I'd support them connecting with whatever community they could find. Some people were born into the wrong body and most kids know it immediately. The dysphoria can happen early. I'm sure there are some kids that make mistakes and try hormone therapy because they think it will make them feel better. The list of reasons they might do this are long and many are related to abuse or depression. How about we stop labeling people pedophiles and support people (even kids) finding their truth. I'd also firmly believe all transgender adults would be _horrified_ by any type of abuse. You're going to find an outlier in there as with any statistic. But like 99.9999% of all transgender adults come from a position of empathy and support. To assume otherwise is you just pushing your idea of morality on other people. Of course if you simply refuse to believe in the idea that someone could be gay or bi or trans (and be certain of it at a young age), that's an entirely different conversation. Kids know who they are. We're supposed to guide them. Not oppress them.
mazdayasna 4y ago
Here is an excellent writeup on the forum and the recent drama, that is not actively trying to push an agenda on the situation. https://defaultfriend.substack.com/p/suicide-by-kiwi-farms https://defaultfriend.substack.com/p/suicide-by-kiwi-farms
- hnburnsy 4y ago
  Thank you for a varied view of this. Not surprised to see Taylor Lorenz involved in all of this... >In a profile on her in the Washington Post, written by, oh wow, Taylor Lorenz again, Taylor writes...
burnte 4y ago
> I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. Because it IS just that. This is the logical and proper consequence for freedom of speech. You speak, others get to react in their own way that does not HARM you but they are not obligated to HELP you speak.
_dain_ 4y ago
- ce4 4y ago
  You got that wrong. No one was censored by CF, because you dont need CF to have an internet appearance. If anything, it's the DDoS attacks that are censoring KF. But in the end it just got more expensive for KF to speak.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    CF outright blocked the KF domain, they didn't just rescind DDoS protection. and deliberately not protecting a paying customer as they are attacked by DDoSing criminals is just censorship by another name. it's a critical piece of infrastructure; large sites just can't survive on the modern internet without it. it's like if the police and fire services announced they wouldn't protect a specific house from roving packs of arsonists.
    - ce4 4y ago
      Well, no, that's not how it works. They stopped business with KF by not forwarding traffic to the protected/secret origin anymore, thats how reverse proxies work. The owner of the domain is free to update their DNS records and point it to another CDN or even the unprotected origin
      - e2le 4y ago
        > CF outright blocked the KF domain They might be referring to CF also being the domain registrar for KF.
istinetz 4y ago
>There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. Strong disagree. Free speech is a central tenet for the entire modern society. Without it, there is no scientific revolution, no Enlightenment. Accept controversial, unpleasant, disruptive discussion and ideas or accept stagnation. That's it, there is no way around it.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  I, and others, are using our speech to convince others that this forum shouldn't have a platform on the internet. Should you accept my speech? Should you accept CF's form of speech (which is to not help amplify harmful speech)? Free speech isn't just the ability to say things, but also the ability to not say something, and to not help share something. Action (and inaction) is a form of speech.
byyll 4y ago
> I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. That's the issue. You are getting your understanding for the situation from one side as the other is being actively censored. > There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. (US) government or laws have nothing to do with free speech. > don't support bad behavior and certainly not dangerous "bad" and "dangerous" are broad and extremely, extremely subjective terms.

philippejara 4y ago

Well, doxing by public means seemed to be pretty open and shut yes, but while there are accusations galore of swatting I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence of them being to blame for it, and on paper they actively prohibit illegal things of that sort, for whatever that's worth. Hell the obvious false flag on the congresswomen straight up saying it was a specific user on the forum should be enough to cast suspicions on all these accusations as far as I'm concerned and at least expect some proof, some archive, something.

charcircuit 4y ago

sonofhans 4y ago
> Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but … There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. > the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums. This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer. > In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >There’s no “but” here There is because I wrote it there. But is used to show contrast. I was contrasting how there was doxing and there wasn't swatting. >doxxing is unethical and illegal It may be unethical to you, but it is ethical to me. Doxxing is not illegal in the United States. >This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it. I see the documentation and preservation as a good thing. Not everyone has to share the same opinion as me. People who don't want to see this stuff can not visit the site. >This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod It doesn't glorify it anymore than wikipedia glorifies the historical events it has articles about. >The forum provides the means That doesn't mean the forum should be responsible. If Is someone googles a person's name and their address shows up does that mean Google is responsible for the person being swatted? In my opinion, no it isn't. >glorifies the result The forum can't control how people respond to the event. No one is forcing people to commented negatively or positively or even at all about it. Even without the Kiwi Farms it would likely be talked about somewhere else. >they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer They don't implicitly do this either. The community in general doesn't swat people. Yes, I'm sure you can find some exception, but I don't believe a community should be killed just because there are some bad people who claim to be a part of it in it. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance A link isn't an argument. Are you trying to say that free speech is bad and that we should censor people to avoid the subset of acceptable speech from changing? I personally am pro free speech and anti censorship so we disagree on these things if that was what you were trying to say.

cowtools 4y ago

Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. It used to be that all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting. People didn't use to have public internet identities like they do today- probably because there wasn't any way to profit from owning a public identity or from harvesting the data of others. Maybe people don't remember that since reddit (and others) ate up all the small forums and made them advertiser friendly. One of these "sketchy ways to make money" is to abuse the networks with DDoS attacks and racketeering- on either the protection side (CloudFlare, etc.) or the offensive side (botnets, etc.)

masklinn 4y ago
> Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. "Generally" is an important word here. So is "should". That speech "should generally" be free does not mean all speech is always acceptable. As the saying goes, your freedom to act ends where my nose begins. When a site is used to organize and synchronise harassment for months, to the at least tacit allowance and at most open encouragement of the site's management, it is way beyond where noses begin. > It used to be that all forums had pervasive doxxing and swatting. That is a level of nonsense and whataboutism I've rarely seen.
- cowtools 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    We all know where this line of dialog goes. Someone posts the thing and then you or someone else responds with, "it's clearly a joke," a "one off," "doesn't speak for all of KF," "not a regular user," "not affiliated with KF," "doesn't actually cause harm," or any other response. Sorry but the pro-KF well has been poisoned - ironically by KF users and supporters themselves. It's an absolute self punch in the face. Why don't you describe what your evidentiary level of acceptibility is first and then we provide the evidence? I'm asking because, honestly, I don't think it exists. I dont think any level of evidence would be satisfactory. Happy to be proven wrong though.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue Nitpick: it is a free speech issue. It’s just not a First Amendment concern. Your broader point stands: rights must balance; it’s perfectly fair for the freedom of assembly to peacefully balance someone freedom of speech.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
I agree - you have the right to not go some place where you don't want to be. You do not have the right to convince a fire department to stop protecting a house so you can burn it down in peace. To think this situation is anything BUT that is pure hypocrisy.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > this situation is anything BUT that is pure hypocrisy Fires kill people. As do bombs. As in bomb threats levied to intimidate someone into not speaking. Nobody is dying because Kiwi Farms is being DDOS’d. If there is a side antithetical to free speech in this discussion, it’s the group threatening to assault people whose speech they disagree with. Not those asking them to take their business elsewhere.

Cyberdog 4y ago

karlshea 4y ago
? https://www.businessinsider.com/kiwi-farms-trans-activists-mtg-swatting-trolling-website-offline-2022-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/kiwi-farms-trans-activists-m...
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  - wickedsickeune 4y ago
    What is the motive of the lie? To shut down Kiwi Farms?
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      <MrKrabs>Money.</MrKrabs> They aren't actively lying or even putting in effort to lie for the sake of it. They just aren't putting in the effort to uncover the truth and explaining things beyond outrage bait. A few clickbait articles help generate clicks among a majority crowd that doesn't even know what KF is, and will have forgotten by tomorrow. They just care about the clicks. Which leads to millions of half-truths which are far more complicated in depth, but most people aren't going through the effort to criticize what they read. They just want the quick drama to talk about and go on with their day. Anyone who's read a magazine intended for the opposite gender can tell most of the articles regarding their own gender is largely bogus half-truths missing nuance. It's no different in most other spaces, but it's not as obvious when you don't have expertise on the matter yourself.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    You know the site was public when it was still up, right? Look at the evidence Keffals collected, for example: https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1560375267721363456 https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1560375267721363456

_vvaw 4y ago

In terms of SWATing, harassment, and "driving people to suicide" this is a false impression, one that is intentionally spread by the site's detractors. SWATing and harassment is strictly banned on Kiwi Farms. The site owner aggressively removes such posts and cooperates with law enforcement. The leader of the campaign to take down Kiwi Farms is Keffals, a transsexual Twitch streamer with a large underage audience. Kiwi Farms has documented Keffals’ sexualized interactions with underage members of her community, as well as her history in porn and online interactions with several open pedophiles. Some believe this is why she wants the site nuked. See archived copy of the Kiwi Farms thread for documentation of Keffals' encouragement of doxing and SWATing, sexual grooming of minors on the “Catboy Ranch” Discord server, and her website which instructs minors on how to secretly obtain and self-dose cross-sex hormones behind parents’ backs: https://archive.ph/HY4hK https://archive.ph/HY4hK The sketchy online pharmacy Keffals’ DIY HRT Directory promotes sells cross-sex hormones marketed to children, with holofoil anime lolita box art and labels that say “keep away from parents”: https://archive.ph/zZMRp https://archive.ph/zZMRp The medical consequences of a confused child self-dosing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones outside parental and medical supervision can be sterilizing, irreversible, and lifelong. Keffals promotes the DIY HRT Directory on Twitter and Twitch to a huge audience of underaged viewers. None of these details about Keffals were mentioned in WaPo or NBC accounts of this story. It is incredibly dismaying to see Keffals doing this to children, well-documented and for the most part out in the open, and realize that no one in the news media cares. === EDIT: In response to a comment below... KF's owner refused the New Zealand's government command to remove Brenton Tarrant's manifesto and shooting video. This demand was not backed up by American law. He cooperates with law enforcement requests for information on criminal threats and illegal material posted to Kiwi Farms.

ChicagoDave 4y ago
Got five kids. If any of them were trans, I'd support them connecting with whatever community they could find. Some people were born into the wrong body and most kids know it immediately. The dysphoria can happen early. I'm sure there are some kids that make mistakes and try hormone therapy because they think it will make them feel better. The list of reasons they might do this are long and many are related to abuse or depression. How about we stop labeling people pedophiles and support people (even kids) finding their truth. I'd also firmly believe all transgender adults would be _horrified_ by any type of abuse. You're going to find an outlier in there as with any statistic. But like 99.9999% of all transgender adults come from a position of empathy and support. To assume otherwise is you just pushing your idea of morality on other people. Of course if you simply refuse to believe in the idea that someone could be gay or bi or trans (and be certain of it at a young age), that's an entirely different conversation. Kids know who they are. We're supposed to guide them. Not oppress them.

mazdayasna 4y ago

Here is an excellent writeup on the forum and the recent drama, that is not actively trying to push an agenda on the situation. https://defaultfriend.substack.com/p/suicide-by-kiwi-farms https://defaultfriend.substack.com/p/suicide-by-kiwi-farms

hnburnsy 4y ago
Thank you for a varied view of this. Not surprised to see Taylor Lorenz involved in all of this... >In a profile on her in the Washington Post, written by, oh wow, Taylor Lorenz again, Taylor writes...

burnte 4y ago

> I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. Sounds like a perfect example of society holding a site accountable and producing the correct outcome. Because it IS just that. This is the logical and proper consequence for freedom of speech. You speak, others get to react in their own way that does not HARM you but they are not obligated to HELP you speak.

_dain_ 4y ago

ce4 4y ago
You got that wrong. No one was censored by CF, because you dont need CF to have an internet appearance. If anything, it's the DDoS attacks that are censoring KF. But in the end it just got more expensive for KF to speak.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  CF outright blocked the KF domain, they didn't just rescind DDoS protection. and deliberately not protecting a paying customer as they are attacked by DDoSing criminals is just censorship by another name. it's a critical piece of infrastructure; large sites just can't survive on the modern internet without it. it's like if the police and fire services announced they wouldn't protect a specific house from roving packs of arsonists.
  - ce4 4y ago
    Well, no, that's not how it works. They stopped business with KF by not forwarding traffic to the protected/secret origin anymore, thats how reverse proxies work. The owner of the domain is free to update their DNS records and point it to another CDN or even the unprotected origin
    - e2le 4y ago
      > CF outright blocked the KF domain They might be referring to CF also being the domain registrar for KF.

istinetz 4y ago

>There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. Strong disagree. Free speech is a central tenet for the entire modern society. Without it, there is no scientific revolution, no Enlightenment. Accept controversial, unpleasant, disruptive discussion and ideas or accept stagnation. That's it, there is no way around it.

ryan_lane 4y ago
I, and others, are using our speech to convince others that this forum shouldn't have a platform on the internet. Should you accept my speech? Should you accept CF's form of speech (which is to not help amplify harmful speech)? Free speech isn't just the ability to say things, but also the ability to not say something, and to not help share something. Action (and inaction) is a form of speech.

byyll 4y ago

> I don't know the entire history here, but my understanding is that KF was a forum where doxing and swatting was openly pervasive. That's the issue. You are getting your understanding for the situation from one side as the other is being actively censored. > There was no government involved, so it's not a "free speech" issue. (US) government or laws have nothing to do with free speech. > don't support bad behavior and certainly not dangerous "bad" and "dangerous" are broad and extremely, extremely subjective terms.