3 ms·

Whenever I read stories of big tech making decision to destroy some digital asset by taking decisions like this or banning people from their accounts (read gmai

Whenever I read stories of big tech making decision to destroy some digital asset by taking decisions like this or banning people from their accounts (read gmail, google drive, etc.) It makes me shiver. They can put a brick wall in front of anyone's life/business.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
I'm okay with removing someone from the internet if their business is to harass and dox people.
- firstSpeaker 4y ago
  Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.
  - Cr4shMyCar 4y ago
    That's the problem though. Legal gears move slowly, and you know that Kiwifarms would've kept destroying people's lives and driving people to suicide until they got shut down. I would've preferred actual legal action rather than companies dropping KF because they're bad for business, but the end goal of getting them shut down is the same.
    - voidpointercast 4y ago
    - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
      Who's lives and what deaths? Most of the (3) people claimed to have died, didn't claim anything of the sort. (in fact the one that activists like to bring up most, who is actually dead, literally blamed the mental health system and being made homeless the day before) The one person who did blame them seems to have died without leaving any proof for official records of both the Japanese or American governments. Just the word of a friend and a former (as in even before death) employer. What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
      - jjulius 4y ago
        Do you, or do you not, feel that it is OK to doxx individuals in the manner that occurs on KiwiFarms? Why or why not?
        HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs. Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info. And in the context of KF, harassment and even interacting is against the rules. Attempting to do anything illegal, making threats or swatting etc are literal instant bans with your info being handed over to law on request.
        jjulius 4y ago
        >No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... There was a follow-up: Why? KiwiFarms clearly allows this doxxing to occur on a daily basis, and I know that you know this. While it's not illegal, if you don't feel that doxxing is generally OK, why do you feel that it's OK for KF users to continue to go to the extent that they do? >More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs Two wrongs do not make a right. >Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info. There is a significant difference there. A lot of the information that is publicly available is information that has to be compiled. Someone has to go to the effort to look through all of the nooks and crannies to obtain what they want. KiwiFarms saves time and compiles general publicly available data that might be "difficult" to obtain to some degree, often times alongside otherwise private photos and information that individuals might not want widely disseminated, even if they did share it. This compiled data can make it easier and more likely for bad actors to do harm than if they had to go to greater lengths to obtain that info. The fact that massive, multi-page forums threads can exist with tons of users providing all of this data and talking about these people is enough to cause mental damage to the targets of these threads. Actions need not be direct nor illegal to be harmful, and you know just as well as I do that there have been plenty of examples of people claiming harm from the existence of such threads. Even if the behavior is not allowed and banned, the environment is still rife to encourage it. The further you allow people to go, legal or not, the more comfortable they're going to get with the boundaries that they push. This is evidenced by the historical instances of swatting and direct harassment that have stemmed from KF despite it's own rules against it, even apparently as recently as a few weeks ago. >My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. That might be the case, but arguing in support of KF here is essentially arguing in support of what I just described above.
    - redeeman 4y ago
      you think they are just gonna go "oh well it was a good run, let me go volunteer at the soup kitchen now"?
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    I'm not comfortable with people being forced at metaphorical gunpoint to host or deliver objectionable content, and that appears to be what you're proposing here. If we want governments to mandate due process standards, they can be the ones to host that content as a provider-of-last-resort.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own? If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.
    - firstSpeaker 4y ago
      I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?
      - jjulius 4y ago
        If you were to host your own forum, and people began using it to dox trans individuals with the explicit goal of harassing them, how would you react and what action(s), if any, would you take?
        caeril 4y ago
        Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing. IA is not being "bad", here. They're just being inconsistent. Either doxing/harassment is casus belli to scrub content, or it's not.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing. We do know that Kiwifarms was doxing people, but I would like to see proof of these "antifa forums", please. "Antifa" has become such an umbrella term, it's almost mythological at this point.
        klyrs 4y ago
  - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
    There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!
      - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        Well that kind of is important if you want to force it offline legally!
        jjulius 4y ago
        It's perfectly legal for one to opt not to host something, or provide DDoS protection for it, for any reason they choose.
        subsistence234 4y ago
        HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        This is what is so scary about the hysterical fictional narrative misinforming so many. people generally don't have the first clue about the stakes and what really happened. They weren't being hosted by CF, they were getting protection against illegal DDoS attacks. CF DDoS protection is an infrastructure service. Infrastructure level services picking and choosing who is allowed and not allowed, is a very dangerous thing. Such action quickly risk unraveling the entire net.
        jjulius 4y ago
  - klyrs 4y ago
    If somebody breaks into your house, you should wait for due process with accordance of law. Homeowners shouldn't make unilateral decisions about who is and is not legally allowed in their home.
    - gruez 4y ago
      except in this case, the owner of the "house" (website) is fine with the visitors. Instead, another organization (the HOA?) wants to kick out the owner because they don't like the visitors that he's inviting.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Point is, "the law" moves slower than emergencies unfold. Individuals and corporations have the right to enact and enforce their own rules on their own property, within reason.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
c0mptonFP 4y ago
Meh, big tech are private corporations. That's what they've been doing for thousands of years. If you care about censorship-resistance, support decentralized projects.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

manuelabeledo 4y ago

I'm okay with removing someone from the internet if their business is to harass and dox people.

firstSpeaker 4y ago
Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.
- Cr4shMyCar 4y ago
  That's the problem though. Legal gears move slowly, and you know that Kiwifarms would've kept destroying people's lives and driving people to suicide until they got shut down. I would've preferred actual legal action rather than companies dropping KF because they're bad for business, but the end goal of getting them shut down is the same.
  - voidpointercast 4y ago
  - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
    Who's lives and what deaths? Most of the (3) people claimed to have died, didn't claim anything of the sort. (in fact the one that activists like to bring up most, who is actually dead, literally blamed the mental health system and being made homeless the day before) The one person who did blame them seems to have died without leaving any proof for official records of both the Japanese or American governments. Just the word of a friend and a former (as in even before death) employer. What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      Do you, or do you not, feel that it is OK to doxx individuals in the manner that occurs on KiwiFarms? Why or why not?
      - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs. Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info. And in the context of KF, harassment and even interacting is against the rules. Attempting to do anything illegal, making threats or swatting etc are literal instant bans with your info being handed over to law on request.
        jjulius 4y ago
        >No, or at least not unless there was a good reason... There was a follow-up: Why? KiwiFarms clearly allows this doxxing to occur on a daily basis, and I know that you know this. While it's not illegal, if you don't feel that doxxing is generally OK, why do you feel that it's OK for KF users to continue to go to the extent that they do? >More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs Two wrongs do not make a right. >Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info. There is a significant difference there. A lot of the information that is publicly available is information that has to be compiled. Someone has to go to the effort to look through all of the nooks and crannies to obtain what they want. KiwiFarms saves time and compiles general publicly available data that might be "difficult" to obtain to some degree, often times alongside otherwise private photos and information that individuals might not want widely disseminated, even if they did share it. This compiled data can make it easier and more likely for bad actors to do harm than if they had to go to greater lengths to obtain that info. The fact that massive, multi-page forums threads can exist with tons of users providing all of this data and talking about these people is enough to cause mental damage to the targets of these threads. Actions need not be direct nor illegal to be harmful, and you know just as well as I do that there have been plenty of examples of people claiming harm from the existence of such threads. Even if the behavior is not allowed and banned, the environment is still rife to encourage it. The further you allow people to go, legal or not, the more comfortable they're going to get with the boundaries that they push. This is evidenced by the historical instances of swatting and direct harassment that have stemmed from KF despite it's own rules against it, even apparently as recently as a few weeks ago. >My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing. That might be the case, but arguing in support of KF here is essentially arguing in support of what I just described above.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    you think they are just gonna go "oh well it was a good run, let me go volunteer at the soup kitchen now"?
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  I'm not comfortable with people being forced at metaphorical gunpoint to host or deliver objectionable content, and that appears to be what you're proposing here. If we want governments to mandate due process standards, they can be the ones to host that content as a provider-of-last-resort.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own? If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.
  - firstSpeaker 4y ago
    I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?
    - jjulius 4y ago
      If you were to host your own forum, and people began using it to dox trans individuals with the explicit goal of harassing them, how would you react and what action(s), if any, would you take?
      - caeril 4y ago
        Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing. IA is not being "bad", here. They're just being inconsistent. Either doxing/harassment is casus belli to scrub content, or it's not.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing. We do know that Kiwifarms was doxing people, but I would like to see proof of these "antifa forums", please. "Antifa" has become such an umbrella term, it's almost mythological at this point.
        klyrs 4y ago
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!
    - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
      Well that kind of is important if you want to force it offline legally!
      - jjulius 4y ago
        It's perfectly legal for one to opt not to host something, or provide DDoS protection for it, for any reason they choose.
        subsistence234 4y ago
        HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        This is what is so scary about the hysterical fictional narrative misinforming so many. people generally don't have the first clue about the stakes and what really happened. They weren't being hosted by CF, they were getting protection against illegal DDoS attacks. CF DDoS protection is an infrastructure service. Infrastructure level services picking and choosing who is allowed and not allowed, is a very dangerous thing. Such action quickly risk unraveling the entire net.
        jjulius 4y ago
- klyrs 4y ago
  If somebody breaks into your house, you should wait for due process with accordance of law. Homeowners shouldn't make unilateral decisions about who is and is not legally allowed in their home.
  - gruez 4y ago
    except in this case, the owner of the "house" (website) is fine with the visitors. Instead, another organization (the HOA?) wants to kick out the owner because they don't like the visitors that he's inviting.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Point is, "the law" moves slower than emergencies unfold. Individuals and corporations have the right to enact and enforce their own rules on their own property, within reason.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

c0mptonFP 4y ago

Meh, big tech are private corporations. That's what they've been doing for thousands of years. If you care about censorship-resistance, support decentralized projects.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]