2 ms·
To get closer with the KF situation, the phone company is not typically set up as a moderated venue where administrators, moderators, and janitors are aware of
by claudiawerner 4y ago
To get closer with the KF situation, the phone company is not typically set up as a moderated venue where administrators, moderators, and janitors are aware of every call and interaction on the service, its content, and who is interacting with who.
They might be able to deduce some of this (and some of it they can't even deduce legally), but it's nothing like an online forum in which the administrators and moderators condone the behavior to (what they see as) reasonable limits just shy of breaking laws against harassment.
Furthermore, if we likened web services to phone services, you'd find we're using a service which doesn't allow half of what KF allows to be posted in accordance with the HN guidelines. And I'm fine with that sort of moderation.
Most phone companies are set up with the implicit assumption that they are content neutral within the bounds of the law, though some do provide further restrictions. KF was not set up as such - this 'ridicule' and 'embarrassing information' is the entire point of the website, and is much closer as a proximal cause to the harassment. It aided that ridicule and connecting people of like minds with bad intentions with the knowledge that this kind of discussion is explicitly banned on Reddit, HN, and to some extent 4chan.
If there were a phone company set up with its advertising and moderation similar to KF's, I'd say the phone company is just as culpable as KF.
- amadeuspagel 4y agoBut I'm not comparing the phone company to KF, I'm comparing the phone company to cloudflare. (Admittedly, rereading my comment, that wasn't clear.)
- claudiawerner 4y agoIf the phone company knowingly carried a clique of users matching the description of KF, I don't think it significantly changes the argument.