3 ms·
The swats were not verified as coming from KF, and they said they oppose that sort of thing. I noticed that some of the people KF had threads on, were targeted
by vintermann 4y ago
The swats were not verified as coming from KF, and they said they oppose that sort of thing. I noticed that some of the people KF had threads on, were targeted specifically because they overstep the boundaries of what KF considers acceptable (for instance the "Ralph Retort" blogger).
You could still argue that Kiwifarms still "enables" people who are even worse than them, in the same way that certain glossy magazines enable harassment of various celebrities. Certainly Kiwifarms themselves get worked up over people who merely "enable" bad things, so they don't have that much non-hypocritical leg to stand on. Still, we used to defended those magazines for free speech reasons, and for the sake of the few times they reveal something genuinely in the public interest.
(The "credible bomb threats" was IMO not very credible, it was a fresh account claiming to be able to commandeer out Irish paramilitaries to bomb multiple sites in minutes. And the post was reported instantly, and removed within minutes. That's something that could happen to all sites that allow public comments.)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> we used to defended those magazines for free speech reasons, and for the sake of the few times they reveal something genuinely in the public interest There was editorial control. Someone to be held accountable, and someone making decisions knowing that. User-generated content is different. I am less certain of any prescription for the problem than I am in the difference being salient. Heuristics that work on print media aren’t easily translated to social.
- curtainsforus 4y agoKiwifarms has editorial control, though. Posts advocating swatting or violence are removed, and their users banned.