7 ms·
I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email p
by insanitybit 4y ago
I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing.
This is a good thing.
edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/ malware but also domains/infra hosting those services. If a hosting provider finds out that they are hosting Command and Control infrastructure, or malware, or spam (ie: SES), they will remove that. And no one is up in arms about censorship over it because that would be really stupid.
- josephcsible 4y agoCensorship is different from email spam filters and antivirus software because the recipient can choose to bypass the latter for individual emails or files if they want to. And that ability is important, since both have false positives a lot.
- sascha_sl 4y agoCan the targets of Kiwifarms opt-out from being harassed as a result of being listed alongside their address on the site?
- FeepingCreature 4y agoTwo wrongs don't make a right. If Kiwifarms is acting illegally, sue them in court. If there are no laws, lobby to make them. ISPs are not police, elected representatives or courts; they shouldn't be allowed to usurp that role.
- sascha_sl 4y agoYou're acting like "lobbying to make them" is as easy as following a 3-step how to guide. Think about trans people as a demographic for a second. We have very little economic power or numbers worth mobilizing for votes. Absolutely nobody has any interest in lobbying for us, corporations posturing to appeal to idealistic liberals (and then doing nothing) aside. The only resemblance of institutional power trans people have is to appeal to those that have the actual power.
- simplotek 4y ago> Two wrongs don't make a right. If Kiwifarms is acting illegally, sue them in court. If there are no laws, lobby to make them. No ISP is compelled to provide services to the likes of kiwi farms. If there are no laws, lobby to make them. You have no right to force others to cater to your personal whims, specially if they are objectionable.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoFair enough. That said, consider my comment part of this process. :) edit: I guess my disagreement with the idea of "forcing others" is primarily that I don't consider companies past a certain size worthy of having a right of free expression.
- BigsQuickly 4y agoYeah but I can still get fired for misgendering a coworker who decided last week that his name was "Sally". It works both ways.
- sascha_sl 4y agoI'm not sure what reality you live in, but I had decided long before I told anyone at work and they still kept misgendering and deadnaming me regularly without me magically getting them fired. The only solution really is to switch jobs and never tell them your prior name. The only exception to this is very obvious malice. Everything else is more likely to get you fired if you complain to HR than them.
- hnusersarelame 4y ago> In March 2019, Kiwi Farms republished both the livestream and the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. Shortly after, website owner Joshua Moon publicly denied a request by New Zealand Police to voluntarily hand over all data on posts about the shooting, including the email and IP addresses of posters. Moon responded aggressively and mockingly, calling New Zealand a "shithole country", and stated that he did not "give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law says about sharing your email". The law won’t work here. They don’t care about the law.
- sinity 4y agoWhy would anyone living outside of New Zealand care about New Zealand laws? Why the hell would (should?) he hand over private data of some people to the police?
- Carl_B 4y agoHe's an American citizen, and the Kiwi Farms is hosted in America. What law did he break by telling the New Zealand police to fuck off?
- XCabbage 4y agoLike who? Whenever Kiwi Farms comes up, I see these claims made about it - that people were threatened with violence, that the forum was used to coordinate harassment campaigns, that home addresses were posted, etc etc - but never with any specific examples shown of any of that happening.
- immibis 4y agoCome on now. This is common knowledge and you can easily research it yourself. What you're doing right now is the moral equivalent of saying "nobody has shown me evidence that germs exist" on a COVID-19 thread.
- immibis 4y agoin fact, they actually do do this, don't they? Quite a lot of COVID-19 deniers demanded proof of "isolation" i.e. they demanded someone to show them a vial of pure COVID-19 virus and then somehow prove that's really what's in the vial. And they demanded proof of "Koch's postulates" i.e. that injecting people with the stuff in the vial gives them COVID-19, etc etc. e.g. this FOIA request: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/proofthatcovid19hasbeenisolatedinalaboratory https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...
- Carl_B 4y agoIs this false equivalence or whataboutism? I'm not very familiar with debate terms.
- dmatech 4y agoThere's a fundamental difference between being spoken to and being spoken about. You have a right to prevent others from speaking to you but not about you (at least in the USA).
- bobsmooth 4y agoYes, stop posting your personal information online.
- sascha_sl 4y agoDo you think perfect opsec is a realistic target for your average human being (especially outside the tech bubble) or did you just want to victim blame? The fact that twitch streamers still regularly get their addresses leaked despite taking appropriate measures shows how impossible of a standard this is.
- insanitybit 4y agoThat's true in the case of email. Malware hosting services get removed all of the time, none of the people they were targeting "consented" to that or were even aware.
- adventured 4y agoSpam is not speech. You haven't found a gotcha in the argument. Spam is a form of harrassment. If it's an attack, harrassment, violence, an initiation of force, etc. then it isn't speech. Which is why yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is also not speech (despite people also thinking that's another gotcha example to free speech), it's an act of violence or attempted violence. Free speech doesn't exist in the context of violence being applied or threatened, an actor is not free if they're being threatened or attacked, they're under duress, which is a particular impingement of the mind. > So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing. It's not censorship.
- chrisoverzero 4y ago> Which is why yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is also not speech (despite people also thinking that's another gotcha example to free speech) Next, you’ll be telling us that it’s OK for the government to arrest socialists for passing out anti-war flyers.
- ueid-max 4y ago[flagged]
- insanitybit 4y agoI think you're confusing speech with protected speech. Those are all examples of speech, they are just not protected.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Trumpi 4y ago> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censorship because, after all, who decides what is spam? If the publisher is prevented from publishing despite having an audience that wants to read them, that is censorship.
- josephcsible 4y agoExactly. If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen, it's not censorship to keep him from having to. But if he does want to listen, it is censorship to keep him from being able to.
- tmottabr 4y agoyeah.. the problem is that you are forgetting about charlie... Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings.. The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to transport the tapes she record.. Now, Alice can still record the tapes and she can even go and deliver the tapes herself and bob can listen to those tapes when he get those, but neither of then can force charlies to transport the tapes for them..
- vintermann 4y agoThe question is if Charlie is some poor guy drafted to carry people's tapes... or if he's like a billionaire owning the street and forbidding Bob from stepping out to walk down to the other end of the street where Alice lives.
- tmottabr 4y ago
- byyll 4y agoUsing your analogy with malware and spam, the users that do not want to read kiwifarms can choose not to by.. just not reading it. Or blocking it in their firewall or browser. Seems like it's a bad analogy.
- insanitybit 4y agoNot really. Those who host malware and spam domains have them taken down. It's not just about a user receiving a spam email, it's also the fact that when a domain is being used to distribute malware the hosting provider will remove them.
- byyll 4y agoThat's not the case. There are a lot of hosting providers and reverse proxies that will gladly host malware and their upstream ISPs (which this thread is about, not hosting) will not block them. But what happens instead is they (either domains or IPs) get added to lists of phishing or malware enabled by default on most clients (browsers). Google has Safe Browsing and SpamHaus is probably the most popular spam list. In contrast, nobody accidentally visits KiwiFarms. And there is nothing done to you (malware to download or your information being stolen) if you accidentally do.
- insanitybit 4y agoMalicious domains, users of email services for spam purposes, etc, get removed by their hosts all the time. That's simply a fact, I have made or been involved with the process as I work in security. There are some providers that are more cooperative than others, and certainly lists like Safe Browsing exists as well to deal with that + they can be more false positive tolerant. My point is that these providers make choices about the content that they host all the time. They do this because some content is just bad. Kiwifarms tipped too far into "bad" and got removed, just like malware would get removed, just like spammers get removed. Visiting a site, accidental or otherwise, isn't relevant.
- 4y ago
- midislack 4y ago
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoSure. And soon the argument devolves into 'just run your own ISP'.
- josephcsible 4y agoYep. And even that ends up not working, because even when you are an ISP, you need to peer with or get transit from other ISPs.
- shitlord 4y agoIs municipal fiber the solution to this problem? The government cannot arbitrarily deny services or crack down on lawful speech.
- pandaman 4y agoI am getting SMSes from (D) governor candidate in the inbox and the ones from (R) are going into the "Spam". If my telco decided to delete those it would be censorship.