7 ms·

> ColoCrossing in Buffalo physically unplugged my servers in 2019 for hosting the Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. I stopped reading the article after re

> ColoCrossing in Buffalo physically unplugged my servers in 2019 for hosting the Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. I stopped reading the article after reading this sentence - and I agreed with everything the author stated until then. Mass shootings, suicides and rapes have happened because of the content of KF and ED. If you provide shelter for the racist, misogynist, homophobic, Nazi and automated weapons fanatic, then you deserve to be censored. Let's not forget that the explicit purpose of KF is to run harassment and doxxing campaigns. I believe that, as a society, we need to deal with people that, for a variety of reasons, have been isolated and pushed to the extremes, instead of further isolating them. But handing them a loudhailer to spread their hate and misanthropy isn't the right way of dealing with them. Your freedom of speech ends when your words cause the murder, rape, beating or harassment of another human being. And, more generally, your freedom ends when it harms somebody else's freedom. If we lose this principle, then we have lost civilization. Building communities around ideas that damage the society as a whole and justify people's most extreme beliefs is just wrong. When too much momentum builds around these ideas, they stop being a virtual pastime for trolls with plenty of time to waste and they spill into the real world. Real people die. Real lives are ruined. And a civilized society ought to draw a clear boundary to prevent these things from happening. We have to deal with the marginalized and the mentally shaky by including them back into society. Not by providing them with a platform to connect with others in the same state, consolidate their extremism, and create individuals that are even more unsuitable for being reintegrated into society than they were before. Granted, it's not always easy for regulators to draw this line, there are a lot of shades of gray, and we need to keep those in charge accountable for unfair censorship. But there's really no gray area for KF and ED. If you host them, then you deserve to be unplugged.

concordDance 4y ago
> Building communities around ideas that damage the society as a whole and justify people's most extreme beliefs is just wrong. The issue is that determining what is wrong isn't something we know how to do. Capitalism and communism have both killed many many orders of magnitude more people than incels or trans hate, but we don't censor groups that advocate for communism even though it lead to tens of millions of deaths. Sure, if we let them continue to speak they may convince everyone to stage a communist revolution and mass death results... But letting them speak is required to be able to tell whether actually they've finally figured out how to safely do communism and by banning them we may be causing needless suffering when we could be in the workers paradise! One of the things so many fail to grasp is that speech and politics is actually really high stakes! Any given question like what the central bank interest rates should be for 2023 will lead to thousands of deaths at the scale of a big country! And yes, if you're completely convinced that they should definitely be 1.4% then censoring everyone who disagrees may save many lives... but implementing a mass censorship scheme on all high stakes conversation prevents you finding out the true and counterintuitive ideas.
- blacklight 4y ago
  Capitalism and communism don't directly invite people to murder or harass who identifies with a different race, creed, gender or political idea (or, at least, they don't do so directly). The white supremacist, neo-Nazi, antisemitic and homophobic, on the other hand, does. And that's the core problem. As a tolerant society, we have the obligation to push back on the ideas that are EXPLICITLY violent and intolerant. That's where we draw the line. Everything behind that line is in the gray/white area, but we shouldn't compromise on what is beyond the line. Civilized societies are held together by tolerance and mutual respect. If we start compromising on this founding principle, and legitimize the spread of racially or ideologically motivated hate, and the harassment of people that did nothing wrong to us, then we have lost civilization.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Both capitalism and communism do lead to murder, this has been empirically shown. Both white supremacism and communism can lead to harassment and murder, but they won't necessarily do so. Homophobia, for example, is not always explicitly violent (e.g. saying that children should not be raised by gay guys is not an explicit call for violence). Btw: Could you be more precise in your meanings and terminology? "Hate" for example is understood in a few different ways by different people.
    - blacklight 4y ago
      I'll make a more concrete example. Saying "wealth needs to be redistributed, private property shouldn't exist and the greedy rich shouldn't exist" is not something that should be censored (same goes for "all property should be private, no regulations should exist, and the State shouldn't help those with no means to help themselves"). We can agree or disagree with these statements, they may push small minority towards violence (e.g. against the rich or the "dangerous" communist), but they don't directly convey actionable hate towards somebody else. They don't invite you to slaughter the rich, or the liberal. Saying "all Jews/n*ggers are bastards who deserve to die", instead, and organizing harassment campaigns against them, and publishing content that puts everyone in the same bucket on the basis of whichever arbitrary segmentation of society that we've come up with, is something worth censoring. That's where I draw the line. If your words invite people to direct hate at someone not because of his/her actions or words, but because of their ideology, race or gender, and you even invite people to be abusive towards that person or group of people, then we are weakening the principle of mutual respect on top of which our civilization is built. And if a platform fails to moderate prejudice and invites to being abusive against other human beings, then that platform has failed in its role as a reliable mean of communication in a modern society. Intolerance and violent speech can only escalate on platforms that are tolerant against them. We've seen it with a lot of content posted on 4chan, 9chan and Parler. If people are left free to speculate on hate-fueled conspiracies, then you start with some vanilla conspiracy theories around the Jews controlling the world, and then a coulpe of weeks later you have a mass shooting in a synagogue. Or you start with a stale fantasy about Dems raping kids in a pizza shop, and next thing you know is that somebody turned up full armed into a pizzeria in Washington to slaughter the paedophile. Tolerating prejudice and abusiveness empowers those with violent tendencies who would normally be too ashamed to share their ideas publicly, amid fears of being judged by "normal" people. If a platform puts enough of these people in contact, and it closes both eyes on their dangerous content, then that platform is removing the societal inhibitory brakes that would normally prevent potential jerks and sociopaths from becoming actual jerks and criminals. And it shouldn't be a surprise if at some point one of them picks a rifle and starts putting their words into actions. The seeds of ALL of the mass shootings and terror acts that have happened in the West in the past decade can be traced back to online communities with extremist tendencies that have been left free to radicalize, until at some point somebody stopped being a troll and became a murderer.
bauruine 4y ago
>But there's really no gray area for KF Is it? The problem I have is that this deplatforming campaign uses dubious media reports and Wikipedia to create this "It's the worst site ever and you absolutely have to drop it" narrative. e.g. The "The Kiwi Farms community considers it a goal to drive its targets to suicide" is sourced from the Book "Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment" which itself links to some random forum with a post saying that. Somehow this is enough to post everywhere that it's a forum with the sole goal to drive people to suicide.
branon 4y ago
> Mass shootings, suicides and rapes have happened because of the content of KF and ED I disagree. It is not possible for the content of a website to be responsible for heinous acts committed IRL. That autonomy can only be utilized by human beings. I also don't see where it's written that KF's mission is to buttress harassment campaigns. If memory serves, there's a banner on the site which explicitly condemns such actions. It doesn't really matter either way though because websites don't harass people, people harass people. I urge caution here - calling for the silence of an entire community due to the actions of a few (or more realistically - due to recent mass hysteria and subsequent media coverage) will make it hard to form a moderated viewpoint. As others have pointed out, this is about the right to read as well. Even if we pat ourselves on the back thinking we've put a hard stop to all online harassment campaigns forever, the knowledge and art (yes - prose is art!) we'll have lost along the way means the victory will ring hollow for some who value unfettered speech.
- ta_303049 4y ago
  If you took the above motif and applied it to a site that hosted child pornography, most people would be horrified. "It is not possible for the content of a website to be responsible for child pornography filmed IRL. That autonomy can only be utilized by human beings." "It doesn't really matter either way though because websites don't make kiddie porn, people make kiddie porn." Etc. Whether Mr. Moon knows it or not, this is a different case then his "free speech" arguments. The case against Kiwi Farms is thus: A) a website hosts illegal material or activity of some kind, and B) the moderation is not particularly pro-active about getting rid of said illegal material. Not all of KF is illegal -- Kiwi Farms is in safe territory simply making shitposts about LOLCows, there is no problem about that. But once members of the community crossed the line into coordinated harassment, they were engaging in illegal activity, plain and simple. Due to Section 230 etc., there is, at present, no real legal obligation for Mr. Moon to take action and moderate against harassment campaigns. However, it is my opinion that Mr. Moon's casual gaslighting of the illegal activity stemming from his board (in fact, as I see it, his statements on transsexuals have amounted to coy support) make it ''more'' likely that the current protections offered by Section 230 will come to an end. The reaction in much "common media" really is "why is a site like Kiwi Farms legal?". It just fuels energy on certain sides of American politics that Section 230 allows too much lawless activity (and with the other side of American politics complaining that Section 230 "censors", it'll probably be gone before you know it.) Mr. Moon can cry "free speech on the Internet" all he wants, in other words, but his site is doing its damn best to end it.
philippejara 4y ago
> Mass shootings, suicides and rapes have happened because of the content of KF and ED. Mass shootings and rapes? Ever since the cloudflare campaign when I began to pay attention to kiwifarms the set of things they have been clearly guilty of has been growing and the amount of minimally credible evidence to back said claims have taken an inverse path. Maybe ED? must admit I don't know much about ED. > If you provide shelter for the racist, misogynist, homophobic, Nazi and automated weapons fanatic, then you deserve to be censored. The website had 2 entire subforums[0] dedicated to both a very right wing figure and the whole america fist movement, as well as threads running in the hundreds/thousands mocking trump supporters, Qanon lunatics, jan 6th rioters and the list goes on. I'm not going to question the sheltering, but to assume that they were not mocked as anyone else is not really true. You did not claim that by the way, but I felt that this was worth mentioning. /pol/ has an order of magnitude worse content and I'm yet to see people wanting to seriously take them down. The same thing with misogynist, i'm not sure. Women seemed to be a huge part of the website's base and there was an incel thread that also ran to the thousands, and incel forums apparently hate kiwifarms becauses of it. I'm sorry for not providing sources but its pretty hard when the website is down, there is a subforum for communities I think and its there where most of incel threads are as well as the jan 6th, qanon, etc. I'll try to get them sourced later if the website goes back up and I find some time. > Let's not forget that the explicit purpose of KF is to run harassment and doxxing campaigns. This is blatantly false. We can argue that there is some behind the scenes secret agenda/group to do that and all but calling it explicit is a lie. It's(was?) a public forum with public rules and open to anyone without an account to read. Since the first cloudflare post here in HN when the website was blocked i've been personally trying to get some archives of this clear as day harassment being fostered on the public website without backlash/banning and I've come up with almost nothing, especially for a website running for almost a decade now. They do dox people/host doxes, as in it is not against the rules and the biggest threads do seem to manage to get them, but then you look at for example byuu's thread and he was never doxed by kiwifarms. Again that is not its explicit purpose, they're not doxbin. > But there's really no gray area for KF and ED. And yet no actual legal investigation has concluded that they're guilty of any harassment(and several were attempted), the owner has made clear that he'll comply with US authority investigations and has actually done it in the case of an user SIGSEGV, there is a subforum for this kind of legal stuff and I believe that is there, or its forum discussion, the thread should be name FBI compliance or something when they go over it. There wasn't even something like a big incident somewhat linked to the website like christchurch with 8chan and jan 6th with gab(?). This is as website that the detractors are effectively creating claims out of thin air and getting them parroted thru media with the sources being pretty much trust me, in a time where archiving something in a forum that doesn't even need an account is a couple clicks, while having the same journalists knowingly printing lies about it (all the outlets blaming kiwifarms for things that doxbin did at the request of a streamer). If this is what passes for no having a gray area we're doomed. When I was younger I was part of a local community that was hit with accusations from another one that absolutely hated us for airing out problems with them, and we got cut off from a lot and eventually killed off because of frivolous accusations from them to the "authority". This was a community linked to a service, and in the grand scheme of things was very small and inconsequential, but I have seen the road where believing things being repeated non-stop leads when it comes to this stuff and I'm extremely scared of it reaching the levels that it reached with kiwifarms. And before anyone asks it had nothing to do with any of the current political zeitgeist, it had to do with cheating, not that it's relevant either way but things get heated in those discussions. [0]: https://archive.ph/7WeyE https://archive.ph/7WeyE [1]: sorry for the other sources, will try to get more once the website is back up or I get more time
skyfaller 4y ago
I think that something people often forget in "free speech" discussions about hateful and dangerous people like Kiwi Farms is that while deplatforming someone can be seen as an evil, killing or imprisoning them certainly would be worse. When you have an organization that promotes violence like the Christchurch shooter, when they begin to use violence in the real world, you will have to (a) kill or imprison them to stop them from hurting others, and/or (b) allow them to kill and injure others. If you see deplatforming people as a preventative measure to keep from having to kill and imprison them (not to mention the harm they will do before you can stop them), then it seems like the morally best thing you can do for these haters. Sadly our culture loves cleaning up things after the fact instead of deploying an ounce of prevention. This is how you end up trying to "harden" every possible target, like schools, installing metal detectors and buying children bulletproof backpacks, instead of just limiting guns. Not only is this expensive, impossible and ineffective, it makes everyone's life worse in innumerable ways. Even before a killer is radicalized by KF, or a SWAT team is sent to someone's house, allowing this harassment to spread just makes the world a worse place to live. Everyone believes in some moderation, otherwise they would be fighting for the right of spammers to spam, and burying any platform they control under mountains of junk. Once we've established that everyone allows moderation in order for communications to function at all, we're just haggling over how many people we're willing to kill with lax moderation, and how nightmarish we're willing to let our "public squares" get before doing something.
- dbfx 4y ago
  tarrant was widely mocked on the website, im not sure what makes you think someone would be radicalized to become another version of him there, everyone was mocked there actually.

concordDance 4y ago

> Building communities around ideas that damage the society as a whole and justify people's most extreme beliefs is just wrong. The issue is that determining what is wrong isn't something we know how to do. Capitalism and communism have both killed many many orders of magnitude more people than incels or trans hate, but we don't censor groups that advocate for communism even though it lead to tens of millions of deaths. Sure, if we let them continue to speak they may convince everyone to stage a communist revolution and mass death results... But letting them speak is required to be able to tell whether actually they've finally figured out how to safely do communism and by banning them we may be causing needless suffering when we could be in the workers paradise! One of the things so many fail to grasp is that speech and politics is actually really high stakes! Any given question like what the central bank interest rates should be for 2023 will lead to thousands of deaths at the scale of a big country! And yes, if you're completely convinced that they should definitely be 1.4% then censoring everyone who disagrees may save many lives... but implementing a mass censorship scheme on all high stakes conversation prevents you finding out the true and counterintuitive ideas.

blacklight 4y ago
Capitalism and communism don't directly invite people to murder or harass who identifies with a different race, creed, gender or political idea (or, at least, they don't do so directly). The white supremacist, neo-Nazi, antisemitic and homophobic, on the other hand, does. And that's the core problem. As a tolerant society, we have the obligation to push back on the ideas that are EXPLICITLY violent and intolerant. That's where we draw the line. Everything behind that line is in the gray/white area, but we shouldn't compromise on what is beyond the line. Civilized societies are held together by tolerance and mutual respect. If we start compromising on this founding principle, and legitimize the spread of racially or ideologically motivated hate, and the harassment of people that did nothing wrong to us, then we have lost civilization.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Both capitalism and communism do lead to murder, this has been empirically shown. Both white supremacism and communism can lead to harassment and murder, but they won't necessarily do so. Homophobia, for example, is not always explicitly violent (e.g. saying that children should not be raised by gay guys is not an explicit call for violence). Btw: Could you be more precise in your meanings and terminology? "Hate" for example is understood in a few different ways by different people.
  - blacklight 4y ago
    I'll make a more concrete example. Saying "wealth needs to be redistributed, private property shouldn't exist and the greedy rich shouldn't exist" is not something that should be censored (same goes for "all property should be private, no regulations should exist, and the State shouldn't help those with no means to help themselves"). We can agree or disagree with these statements, they may push small minority towards violence (e.g. against the rich or the "dangerous" communist), but they don't directly convey actionable hate towards somebody else. They don't invite you to slaughter the rich, or the liberal. Saying "all Jews/n*ggers are bastards who deserve to die", instead, and organizing harassment campaigns against them, and publishing content that puts everyone in the same bucket on the basis of whichever arbitrary segmentation of society that we've come up with, is something worth censoring. That's where I draw the line. If your words invite people to direct hate at someone not because of his/her actions or words, but because of their ideology, race or gender, and you even invite people to be abusive towards that person or group of people, then we are weakening the principle of mutual respect on top of which our civilization is built. And if a platform fails to moderate prejudice and invites to being abusive against other human beings, then that platform has failed in its role as a reliable mean of communication in a modern society. Intolerance and violent speech can only escalate on platforms that are tolerant against them. We've seen it with a lot of content posted on 4chan, 9chan and Parler. If people are left free to speculate on hate-fueled conspiracies, then you start with some vanilla conspiracy theories around the Jews controlling the world, and then a coulpe of weeks later you have a mass shooting in a synagogue. Or you start with a stale fantasy about Dems raping kids in a pizza shop, and next thing you know is that somebody turned up full armed into a pizzeria in Washington to slaughter the paedophile. Tolerating prejudice and abusiveness empowers those with violent tendencies who would normally be too ashamed to share their ideas publicly, amid fears of being judged by "normal" people. If a platform puts enough of these people in contact, and it closes both eyes on their dangerous content, then that platform is removing the societal inhibitory brakes that would normally prevent potential jerks and sociopaths from becoming actual jerks and criminals. And it shouldn't be a surprise if at some point one of them picks a rifle and starts putting their words into actions. The seeds of ALL of the mass shootings and terror acts that have happened in the West in the past decade can be traced back to online communities with extremist tendencies that have been left free to radicalize, until at some point somebody stopped being a troll and became a murderer.

bauruine 4y ago

>But there's really no gray area for KF Is it? The problem I have is that this deplatforming campaign uses dubious media reports and Wikipedia to create this "It's the worst site ever and you absolutely have to drop it" narrative. e.g. The "The Kiwi Farms community considers it a goal to drive its targets to suicide" is sourced from the Book "Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment" which itself links to some random forum with a post saying that. Somehow this is enough to post everywhere that it's a forum with the sole goal to drive people to suicide.

branon 4y ago

> Mass shootings, suicides and rapes have happened because of the content of KF and ED I disagree. It is not possible for the content of a website to be responsible for heinous acts committed IRL. That autonomy can only be utilized by human beings. I also don't see where it's written that KF's mission is to buttress harassment campaigns. If memory serves, there's a banner on the site which explicitly condemns such actions. It doesn't really matter either way though because websites don't harass people, people harass people. I urge caution here - calling for the silence of an entire community due to the actions of a few (or more realistically - due to recent mass hysteria and subsequent media coverage) will make it hard to form a moderated viewpoint. As others have pointed out, this is about the right to read as well. Even if we pat ourselves on the back thinking we've put a hard stop to all online harassment campaigns forever, the knowledge and art (yes - prose is art!) we'll have lost along the way means the victory will ring hollow for some who value unfettered speech.

ta_303049 4y ago
If you took the above motif and applied it to a site that hosted child pornography, most people would be horrified. "It is not possible for the content of a website to be responsible for child pornography filmed IRL. That autonomy can only be utilized by human beings." "It doesn't really matter either way though because websites don't make kiddie porn, people make kiddie porn." Etc. Whether Mr. Moon knows it or not, this is a different case then his "free speech" arguments. The case against Kiwi Farms is thus: A) a website hosts illegal material or activity of some kind, and B) the moderation is not particularly pro-active about getting rid of said illegal material. Not all of KF is illegal -- Kiwi Farms is in safe territory simply making shitposts about LOLCows, there is no problem about that. But once members of the community crossed the line into coordinated harassment, they were engaging in illegal activity, plain and simple. Due to Section 230 etc., there is, at present, no real legal obligation for Mr. Moon to take action and moderate against harassment campaigns. However, it is my opinion that Mr. Moon's casual gaslighting of the illegal activity stemming from his board (in fact, as I see it, his statements on transsexuals have amounted to coy support) make it ''more'' likely that the current protections offered by Section 230 will come to an end. The reaction in much "common media" really is "why is a site like Kiwi Farms legal?". It just fuels energy on certain sides of American politics that Section 230 allows too much lawless activity (and with the other side of American politics complaining that Section 230 "censors", it'll probably be gone before you know it.) Mr. Moon can cry "free speech on the Internet" all he wants, in other words, but his site is doing its damn best to end it.

philippejara 4y ago

> Mass shootings, suicides and rapes have happened because of the content of KF and ED. Mass shootings and rapes? Ever since the cloudflare campaign when I began to pay attention to kiwifarms the set of things they have been clearly guilty of has been growing and the amount of minimally credible evidence to back said claims have taken an inverse path. Maybe ED? must admit I don't know much about ED. > If you provide shelter for the racist, misogynist, homophobic, Nazi and automated weapons fanatic, then you deserve to be censored. The website had 2 entire subforums[0] dedicated to both a very right wing figure and the whole america fist movement, as well as threads running in the hundreds/thousands mocking trump supporters, Qanon lunatics, jan 6th rioters and the list goes on. I'm not going to question the sheltering, but to assume that they were not mocked as anyone else is not really true. You did not claim that by the way, but I felt that this was worth mentioning. /pol/ has an order of magnitude worse content and I'm yet to see people wanting to seriously take them down. The same thing with misogynist, i'm not sure. Women seemed to be a huge part of the website's base and there was an incel thread that also ran to the thousands, and incel forums apparently hate kiwifarms becauses of it. I'm sorry for not providing sources but its pretty hard when the website is down, there is a subforum for communities I think and its there where most of incel threads are as well as the jan 6th, qanon, etc. I'll try to get them sourced later if the website goes back up and I find some time. > Let's not forget that the explicit purpose of KF is to run harassment and doxxing campaigns. This is blatantly false. We can argue that there is some behind the scenes secret agenda/group to do that and all but calling it explicit is a lie. It's(was?) a public forum with public rules and open to anyone without an account to read. Since the first cloudflare post here in HN when the website was blocked i've been personally trying to get some archives of this clear as day harassment being fostered on the public website without backlash/banning and I've come up with almost nothing, especially for a website running for almost a decade now. They do dox people/host doxes, as in it is not against the rules and the biggest threads do seem to manage to get them, but then you look at for example byuu's thread and he was never doxed by kiwifarms. Again that is not its explicit purpose, they're not doxbin. > But there's really no gray area for KF and ED. And yet no actual legal investigation has concluded that they're guilty of any harassment(and several were attempted), the owner has made clear that he'll comply with US authority investigations and has actually done it in the case of an user SIGSEGV, there is a subforum for this kind of legal stuff and I believe that is there, or its forum discussion, the thread should be name FBI compliance or something when they go over it. There wasn't even something like a big incident somewhat linked to the website like christchurch with 8chan and jan 6th with gab(?). This is as website that the detractors are effectively creating claims out of thin air and getting them parroted thru media with the sources being pretty much trust me, in a time where archiving something in a forum that doesn't even need an account is a couple clicks, while having the same journalists knowingly printing lies about it (all the outlets blaming kiwifarms for things that doxbin did at the request of a streamer). If this is what passes for no having a gray area we're doomed. When I was younger I was part of a local community that was hit with accusations from another one that absolutely hated us for airing out problems with them, and we got cut off from a lot and eventually killed off because of frivolous accusations from them to the "authority". This was a community linked to a service, and in the grand scheme of things was very small and inconsequential, but I have seen the road where believing things being repeated non-stop leads when it comes to this stuff and I'm extremely scared of it reaching the levels that it reached with kiwifarms. And before anyone asks it had nothing to do with any of the current political zeitgeist, it had to do with cheating, not that it's relevant either way but things get heated in those discussions. [0]: https://archive.ph/7WeyE https://archive.ph/7WeyE [1]: sorry for the other sources, will try to get more once the website is back up or I get more time

skyfaller 4y ago

I think that something people often forget in "free speech" discussions about hateful and dangerous people like Kiwi Farms is that while deplatforming someone can be seen as an evil, killing or imprisoning them certainly would be worse. When you have an organization that promotes violence like the Christchurch shooter, when they begin to use violence in the real world, you will have to (a) kill or imprison them to stop them from hurting others, and/or (b) allow them to kill and injure others. If you see deplatforming people as a preventative measure to keep from having to kill and imprison them (not to mention the harm they will do before you can stop them), then it seems like the morally best thing you can do for these haters. Sadly our culture loves cleaning up things after the fact instead of deploying an ounce of prevention. This is how you end up trying to "harden" every possible target, like schools, installing metal detectors and buying children bulletproof backpacks, instead of just limiting guns. Not only is this expensive, impossible and ineffective, it makes everyone's life worse in innumerable ways. Even before a killer is radicalized by KF, or a SWAT team is sent to someone's house, allowing this harassment to spread just makes the world a worse place to live. Everyone believes in some moderation, otherwise they would be fighting for the right of spammers to spam, and burying any platform they control under mountains of junk. Once we've established that everyone allows moderation in order for communications to function at all, we're just haggling over how many people we're willing to kill with lax moderation, and how nightmarish we're willing to let our "public squares" get before doing something.

dbfx 4y ago
tarrant was widely mocked on the website, im not sure what makes you think someone would be radicalized to become another version of him there, everyone was mocked there actually.