9 ms·

Cry me a river. For people who aren't aware, the author of this piece is the founder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Cry me a river. For people who aren't aware, the author of this piece is the founder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms The idea that the internet was at some previous point a free-for-all has never been true. Even before the web was a thing SysAdmins would regularly block NNTP newgroups from being available on their servers. It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group. Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance is important: > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

boredhedgehog 4y ago
Note Popper's definition of the intolerant in this context: those who do not engage in rational argument, and those who forbid their followers to listen to rational argument. Neither applies here.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  How so? The harassment campaigns launched from Kiwifarms seem like the opposite of rational argument. Do you imagine that going into Kiwifarms and engaging the users in rational debate about the basic humanity and dignity of their targets would be a fruitful endeavor?
  - philippejara 4y ago
    The harrassment campaigns that have no* paper trail back to kiwifarms, the forum that is public and anyone can archive at any time? Ever since i've started to pay attention to kiwifarms from cloudflare dropping them i've been trying to get the evidence of any harassment coming from there and not being extremely looked down upon/banned and have come out almost empty handed. The scraps i've got are from chris chan in like 2013/2014? This is the kind of dangerous "everyone knows that it is clear they do X thing hence there is no need for evidence". Now to be fair I don't doubt harassment comes from individual kiwifarms users, maybe even organizing with other people somewhere else, but taking down the website will not change that, and guilt by association is a dangerous thing. *none that I could find in the previous threads/most articles about it that is. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
    - throw96 4y ago
      The distance between kiwifarms threads and direct harassment is a thin veneer more meant to shield the site from criticism than anything meaningful. The relationship between the site and the people it stalks is slightly more complicated than appears on the surface. In practice the threads serve largely as a rallying place and public archives of exploits. The actual "touching the poo" occurs in discord servers populated by the very same people posting on the site who initially met in the threads. They will privately coordinate actions on discord, then publicly post them on the site, it is one extra step of laundering that serves only as a layer of plausible deniability. The threads are the central nexus for the harassment, the site rules simply stipulate that the dirtiest work must happen in slightly more private venues. Please understand however, that the threads themselves are essential to this process, they are where the harassment starts and all actions on discord are done specifically to then be posted on the site. This is of course kept as quiet as possible, but an example where the curtain was drawn back would be the behavior of power user SpookyBones. I wont name the person being targeted in particular, but by reading their subforum it is clear to see that kiwifarms users had private discords where they would directly contact the person in question and their friends, and then post the findings back on threads. The distance between kiwifarms itself and direct harassment is mere obfuscation, not a substantive separation. The very people doing the harassment meet on kiwifarms, and then commit their acts purposefully to post on the site. The slight detour offsite for the actual action hardly matters in practice.
      - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
        So basically "i can't provide any evidence but just trust me because I don't like them" then?
      - dbfx 4y ago
        That's a very long winded way to say you have no evidence of it ever happening
        bitwize 4y ago
        Well, it's like Trump. We can't actually convict him of treason yet, but everybody knows he's a Russian pawn.
  - boredhedgehog 4y ago
    In the quote we were discussing, Popper is not concerned with any particular resolution of the argument, but only with whether words are being answered with more words or with fists. As far as I've been able to tell, Moon allows anyone to express any viewpoint on his forum.
- kragen 4y ago
  I think Kiwi Farms' users harassed several people in retaliation for their speech until they killed themselves, rather than engaging in rational argument with them, defending their rights to speak their unpopular opinions, or even just leaving them alone. We're not talking about acrimonious ideological debate; we're talking about stalking and SWATting.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    No, they didn't. This has been debunked numerous times. The evidence for that is on KF itself. The people who perpetuate this narrative are people actually engaged in harassment against others whose activities are documented on KF using their own words which, oddly enough, they really don't like... leading them to attempt mass deplatforming. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this situation knows the score, and no one is fooled.
    - nisegami 4y ago
      I saw it with my own eyes as a user of the site. Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly). A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        > Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly) No they didn't. Null and the mods are very, very emphatic that harassment is unacceptable (hence the phrase he loves to hate, "Don't touch the poop"). Further, nobody was ever nominated as a lolcow simply for being trans. There's nothing particularly funny about that. OTOH, people falsely accusing streamers of rape and trying to get hormones to minors all while holding yourself out as some kind of moral person? Yeah, that's pretty funny. > A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled. There are exactly three people alleged to have offed themselves, and not one of them ever actually did it because of KF. That too is documented at KF since it's a lie that comes up so often. Since you're familiar with this, though, I'm sure you can name them. I'll wait.
HereIGoAgain 4y ago
"That concept doesn't mean what you think it does, in more ways than one! First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists. Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!" Also: https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3 https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-... And: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-excuse-for-attacking-free-speech/ https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...
concordDance 4y ago
Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak. The censors in this case are wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder. The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.
- lanternfish 4y ago
  There's a cogent argument which would claim that proliferation of the Christchurch shooter's footage would serve as a specific causal factor for future mass shootings, especially because part of the motivation of that shooting was exactly the proliferation of that manifesto. In that sense it's almost a memetic threat because any proliferation of the video locks in the reward structure for future copycats. In terms of discourse about what should/shouldn't be generally exposed to people with only a passing interest (external to any discussion about how that moral imperative aught to be enforced), the Christchurch footage would be pretty close to the top of my blacklist. Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Saying we need to censor because free speech benefits mass shooters is wrong for the same reason that saying we need to backdoor encryption because privacy benefits terrorists and pedophiles is.
    - lanternfish 4y ago
      The discriminant between the two positions is that 'free speech' (as constructed here, I probably disagree with the conclusion) need not be a binary. Where backdooring encryption is clearly a binary policy that once triggered can't be revoked, this is only because it pertains to hidden information. Mitigating the proliferation of specific classes of content can be done with specific intent because you know what types of content you're mitigating - fundamentally this is no different than a website (like this one) deciding not to contend with certain types of content (as the rules imply). This means that you break out of the 'slippery slope' argument pretty easily and can get access to 'not negotiating with domestic terrorists' without the negative externalities of suppressing open discourse.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
The article is a case of the worst person you know making an excellent point. > Despite all that, the Internet has one more weak point: Denial of Service Attacks. These attacks use compromised computers to send massive amounts of junk data to a single point, blotting out legitimate traffic and potentially overwhelming target devices. Where's the lie?
philippejara 4y ago
> It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group. This is extremely disingenuous. The request to take the video down came attached with a request to give them all the IPs of people from NZ, when the people in NZ were being liable for jailing by simply having the video in their possesion[0], i quote: >While he said that those who spread the video in New Zealand risked arrest and imprisonment, he warned all New Zealanders that even innocent possession of the video was a crime. “If you have a record of it, you must delete it,” he said. “If you see it, you should report it. Possessing or distributing it is illegal and only supports a criminal agenda.” The response to new zealand was great and deserved, and i'll cheer for it the same way i'd cheer for someone denying a request from saudi arabia or china or whatever other more authoritarian government trying to take shit down across borders [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20201111221018/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/world/asia/new-zealand-attacks-social-media.html?module=inline http://web.archive.org/web/20201111221018/https://www.nytime...
tbrownaw 4y ago
> Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-fighting-for-human-freedom-is-that-one https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-figh... “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken Granting someone the power to decide who does and doesn't get to speak never ends well. It's that "power corrupts" thing. . > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Answering fists with words doesn't always work (it can sometimes if the people using fists are subject to public opinion that you can influence, but that's fairly limited circumstances). But pretending that words are fists in order to manufacture an excuse to respond with fists is something else, and is a misreading of that footnote you referenced to ignore the thing it's a footnote to.
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  It is terrifying how poorly educated people are today in terms of critical thinking or even basic logical reasoning. "only good speech that enough people agree with needs to be protected by freedom of speech"
- QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
  It should be noted that the kiwifarms dude has spent 15 years trying and trying to be such a shitfuck that the rest of society stops giving him the benefit of the doubt, and has only recently succeeded. It may be possible to get kicked off the internet accidentally by saying the wrong things to power, but in this case he got kicked off by intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web.
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    > intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web. I thought the whole "#dropkiwifarms" thing was more shaped like an organized pressure campaign, rather than every new provider he signs on with organically deciding within days that his interactions with them are deliberately obnoxious.
nervlord 4y ago
[dead]
gort19 4y ago
1langisbad 4y ago
Either "censorship is (in general) bad", or "only a select few should be able to fight against it". That's one thing. Another: there's law that already prohibits publishing some of the content deemed harmful. Like that law or not, it's there. The OP stresses that his web sites do not break the law. I'm not a lawyer nor KF user, so I wouldn't know, but what's so wrong with letting the courts decide? I'm sure that law enforcement and judiciary are capable enough to handle complaints about the content. They sure do when the content is copyrighted... The paradox you're mentioning hinges on the assumption that KiwiFarms & similar are actually intolerant, or rather, their continued existence is a threat to the tolerant society/tolerance in the society. Is that really true? I don't know, but I don't think so. How can a tiny community of maybe a few thousands (or tens of thousands?) ever be any kind of threat to the tolerance of a society of hundreds of millions of people? They can be a threat to individuals, but then we're back to previous point: such threats are best dealt with by the courts and police. One tweet from former US President - just one, maybe even any one, out of hundreds of thousands - would be a much bigger threat to tolerant society than all the KiwiFarms of the Internet taken together. That person had literally tens of millions of followers, and what he published incited riots not seen in a long time. Did KF ever cause anything close to that scale? If not, how exactly are they a threat to "tolerant society"? Again: not a user, never seen KF before the recent KF vs. Keffars (IIRC), didn't read or see anything else on the site. I'm just reacting to you essentially saying that people should be unable to host and publish things you, personally, find offending and harmful. I don't like that content either, but I exercise my right to not look at it. If it's really harmful enough to the society to warrant "deplatforming" (or whatever you want to call it) then it's OK to bring their case to the court. The judge or jury will decide, and if they find the content actually harmful and against the law, they will issue a warrant and make the content disappear.
lithos 4y ago
That "paradox" Is flawed a "balanced" society will not be in a position where bad ideas stand unchallenged and remain reputable after being challenged. The tools of censorship are more dangerous existing (meaning they'll eventually be corrupted), than allowing a bad idea to exist and challenged again by society. Basically to believe the Paradox of Intolerance, you need to be of the belief that society has fallen so much that it cannot be trusted to keep itself free, or that the censors you pick will always be uncorrupted for their entire existence.

boredhedgehog 4y ago

Note Popper's definition of the intolerant in this context: those who do not engage in rational argument, and those who forbid their followers to listen to rational argument. Neither applies here.

AlexandrB 4y ago
How so? The harassment campaigns launched from Kiwifarms seem like the opposite of rational argument. Do you imagine that going into Kiwifarms and engaging the users in rational debate about the basic humanity and dignity of their targets would be a fruitful endeavor?
- philippejara 4y ago
  The harrassment campaigns that have no* paper trail back to kiwifarms, the forum that is public and anyone can archive at any time? Ever since i've started to pay attention to kiwifarms from cloudflare dropping them i've been trying to get the evidence of any harassment coming from there and not being extremely looked down upon/banned and have come out almost empty handed. The scraps i've got are from chris chan in like 2013/2014? This is the kind of dangerous "everyone knows that it is clear they do X thing hence there is no need for evidence". Now to be fair I don't doubt harassment comes from individual kiwifarms users, maybe even organizing with other people somewhere else, but taking down the website will not change that, and guilt by association is a dangerous thing. *none that I could find in the previous threads/most articles about it that is. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
  - throw96 4y ago
    The distance between kiwifarms threads and direct harassment is a thin veneer more meant to shield the site from criticism than anything meaningful. The relationship between the site and the people it stalks is slightly more complicated than appears on the surface. In practice the threads serve largely as a rallying place and public archives of exploits. The actual "touching the poo" occurs in discord servers populated by the very same people posting on the site who initially met in the threads. They will privately coordinate actions on discord, then publicly post them on the site, it is one extra step of laundering that serves only as a layer of plausible deniability. The threads are the central nexus for the harassment, the site rules simply stipulate that the dirtiest work must happen in slightly more private venues. Please understand however, that the threads themselves are essential to this process, they are where the harassment starts and all actions on discord are done specifically to then be posted on the site. This is of course kept as quiet as possible, but an example where the curtain was drawn back would be the behavior of power user SpookyBones. I wont name the person being targeted in particular, but by reading their subforum it is clear to see that kiwifarms users had private discords where they would directly contact the person in question and their friends, and then post the findings back on threads. The distance between kiwifarms itself and direct harassment is mere obfuscation, not a substantive separation. The very people doing the harassment meet on kiwifarms, and then commit their acts purposefully to post on the site. The slight detour offsite for the actual action hardly matters in practice.
    - HereIGoAgain 4y ago
      So basically "i can't provide any evidence but just trust me because I don't like them" then?
    - dbfx 4y ago
      That's a very long winded way to say you have no evidence of it ever happening
      - bitwize 4y ago
        Well, it's like Trump. We can't actually convict him of treason yet, but everybody knows he's a Russian pawn.
- boredhedgehog 4y ago
  In the quote we were discussing, Popper is not concerned with any particular resolution of the argument, but only with whether words are being answered with more words or with fists. As far as I've been able to tell, Moon allows anyone to express any viewpoint on his forum.
kragen 4y ago
I think Kiwi Farms' users harassed several people in retaliation for their speech until they killed themselves, rather than engaging in rational argument with them, defending their rights to speak their unpopular opinions, or even just leaving them alone. We're not talking about acrimonious ideological debate; we're talking about stalking and SWATting.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  No, they didn't. This has been debunked numerous times. The evidence for that is on KF itself. The people who perpetuate this narrative are people actually engaged in harassment against others whose activities are documented on KF using their own words which, oddly enough, they really don't like... leading them to attempt mass deplatforming. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this situation knows the score, and no one is fooled.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    I saw it with my own eyes as a user of the site. Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly). A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      > Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly) No they didn't. Null and the mods are very, very emphatic that harassment is unacceptable (hence the phrase he loves to hate, "Don't touch the poop"). Further, nobody was ever nominated as a lolcow simply for being trans. There's nothing particularly funny about that. OTOH, people falsely accusing streamers of rape and trying to get hormones to minors all while holding yourself out as some kind of moral person? Yeah, that's pretty funny. > A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled. There are exactly three people alleged to have offed themselves, and not one of them ever actually did it because of KF. That too is documented at KF since it's a lie that comes up so often. Since you're familiar with this, though, I'm sure you can name them. I'll wait.

HereIGoAgain 4y ago

"That concept doesn't mean what you think it does, in more ways than one! First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists. Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!" Also: https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3 https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-... And: https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-excuse-for-attacking-free-speech/ https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...

concordDance 4y ago

Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak. The censors in this case are wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder. The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.

lanternfish 4y ago
There's a cogent argument which would claim that proliferation of the Christchurch shooter's footage would serve as a specific causal factor for future mass shootings, especially because part of the motivation of that shooting was exactly the proliferation of that manifesto. In that sense it's almost a memetic threat because any proliferation of the video locks in the reward structure for future copycats. In terms of discourse about what should/shouldn't be generally exposed to people with only a passing interest (external to any discussion about how that moral imperative aught to be enforced), the Christchurch footage would be pretty close to the top of my blacklist. Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Saying we need to censor because free speech benefits mass shooters is wrong for the same reason that saying we need to backdoor encryption because privacy benefits terrorists and pedophiles is.
  - lanternfish 4y ago
    The discriminant between the two positions is that 'free speech' (as constructed here, I probably disagree with the conclusion) need not be a binary. Where backdooring encryption is clearly a binary policy that once triggered can't be revoked, this is only because it pertains to hidden information. Mitigating the proliferation of specific classes of content can be done with specific intent because you know what types of content you're mitigating - fundamentally this is no different than a website (like this one) deciding not to contend with certain types of content (as the rules imply). This means that you break out of the 'slippery slope' argument pretty easily and can get access to 'not negotiating with domestic terrorists' without the negative externalities of suppressing open discourse.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

The article is a case of the worst person you know making an excellent point. > Despite all that, the Internet has one more weak point: Denial of Service Attacks. These attacks use compromised computers to send massive amounts of junk data to a single point, blotting out legitimate traffic and potentially overwhelming target devices. Where's the lie?

philippejara 4y ago

> It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group. This is extremely disingenuous. The request to take the video down came attached with a request to give them all the IPs of people from NZ, when the people in NZ were being liable for jailing by simply having the video in their possesion[0], i quote: >While he said that those who spread the video in New Zealand risked arrest and imprisonment, he warned all New Zealanders that even innocent possession of the video was a crime. “If you have a record of it, you must delete it,” he said. “If you see it, you should report it. Possessing or distributing it is illegal and only supports a criminal agenda.” The response to new zealand was great and deserved, and i'll cheer for it the same way i'd cheer for someone denying a request from saudi arabia or china or whatever other more authoritarian government trying to take shit down across borders [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20201111221018/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/world/asia/new-zealand-attacks-social-media.html?module=inline http://web.archive.org/web/20201111221018/https://www.nytime...

tbrownaw 4y ago

> Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-fighting-for-human-freedom-is-that-one https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52416-the-trouble-with-figh... “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken Granting someone the power to decide who does and doesn't get to speak never ends well. It's that "power corrupts" thing. . > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Answering fists with words doesn't always work (it can sometimes if the people using fists are subject to public opinion that you can influence, but that's fairly limited circumstances). But pretending that words are fists in order to manufacture an excuse to respond with fists is something else, and is a misreading of that footnote you referenced to ignore the thing it's a footnote to.

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
It is terrifying how poorly educated people are today in terms of critical thinking or even basic logical reasoning. "only good speech that enough people agree with needs to be protected by freedom of speech"
QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
It should be noted that the kiwifarms dude has spent 15 years trying and trying to be such a shitfuck that the rest of society stops giving him the benefit of the doubt, and has only recently succeeded. It may be possible to get kicked off the internet accidentally by saying the wrong things to power, but in this case he got kicked off by intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  > intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web. I thought the whole "#dropkiwifarms" thing was more shaped like an organized pressure campaign, rather than every new provider he signs on with organically deciding within days that his interactions with them are deliberately obnoxious.

nervlord 4y ago

[dead]

gort19 4y ago

1langisbad 4y ago

Either "censorship is (in general) bad", or "only a select few should be able to fight against it". That's one thing. Another: there's law that already prohibits publishing some of the content deemed harmful. Like that law or not, it's there. The OP stresses that his web sites do not break the law. I'm not a lawyer nor KF user, so I wouldn't know, but what's so wrong with letting the courts decide? I'm sure that law enforcement and judiciary are capable enough to handle complaints about the content. They sure do when the content is copyrighted... The paradox you're mentioning hinges on the assumption that KiwiFarms & similar are actually intolerant, or rather, their continued existence is a threat to the tolerant society/tolerance in the society. Is that really true? I don't know, but I don't think so. How can a tiny community of maybe a few thousands (or tens of thousands?) ever be any kind of threat to the tolerance of a society of hundreds of millions of people? They can be a threat to individuals, but then we're back to previous point: such threats are best dealt with by the courts and police. One tweet from former US President - just one, maybe even any one, out of hundreds of thousands - would be a much bigger threat to tolerant society than all the KiwiFarms of the Internet taken together. That person had literally tens of millions of followers, and what he published incited riots not seen in a long time. Did KF ever cause anything close to that scale? If not, how exactly are they a threat to "tolerant society"? Again: not a user, never seen KF before the recent KF vs. Keffars (IIRC), didn't read or see anything else on the site. I'm just reacting to you essentially saying that people should be unable to host and publish things you, personally, find offending and harmful. I don't like that content either, but I exercise my right to not look at it. If it's really harmful enough to the society to warrant "deplatforming" (or whatever you want to call it) then it's OK to bring their case to the court. The judge or jury will decide, and if they find the content actually harmful and against the law, they will issue a warrant and make the content disappear.

lithos 4y ago

That "paradox" Is flawed a "balanced" society will not be in a position where bad ideas stand unchallenged and remain reputable after being challenged. The tools of censorship are more dangerous existing (meaning they'll eventually be corrupted), than allowing a bad idea to exist and challenged again by society. Basically to believe the Paradox of Intolerance, you need to be of the belief that society has fallen so much that it cannot be trusted to keep itself free, or that the censors you pick will always be uncorrupted for their entire existence.