3 ms·

> It might also be a meeting place for conspirators to plan crimes. That might is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Do you have any evidence that this occurs?

bb88 3y ago
So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ "Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site." Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.
- richbell 3y ago
  > So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims? > Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this. I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down. ) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.
  - bb88 3y ago
    > You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Sorry, I can't edit the original comment anymore. But thanks for pointing that out! > However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime. This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.
      - bb88 3y ago
        > My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples... I, for one, take CloudFlare at their word here. Do you not?
        richbell 3y ago
        Matthew Prince received a massive backlash for this decision and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. As mentioned, I believe it was merely a convenient excuse to justify backtracking on his definitive promise less than 48 hours later. If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?
        bb88 3y ago
        > and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind? My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.
- arp242 3y ago
  If I recall correctly those posts were all from new accounts, and were largely removed by moderators. I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden. The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this. Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).
  - richbell 3y ago
    Notably, the infamous picture taken outside of Keffals' alleged residence in Ireland was posted *on 4chan* by someone claiming to be a member of Kiwi Farms. If they were actually a member of Kiwi Farms, why didn't they post it on the forums? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that they weren't, and they couldn't because KF had closed new user sign ups prior to that.
  - chonkerz 3y ago
    Now imagine if HN admins created a section explicitly purposed for posting Joe Biden's personal family information and stalking his family. That's what Kiwifarms actually is towards its victims. Go look at the front page of the site. There is a section named "lolcow cults" and 4 major forum sections created by the admins naming specific victims by name. I don't think I can even link to it without getting my HN account banned.
    - arp242 3y ago
      Well, yes; I'm saying it's pretty or good. But that doesn't mean everything said about it is true, either.
      - chonkerz 3y ago

bb88 3y ago

So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/ "Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site." Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.

richbell 3y ago
> So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right? It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no? You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims? > Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this. I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down. ) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.
- bb88 3y ago
  > You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Sorry, I can't edit the original comment anymore. But thanks for pointing that out! > However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime. This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.
    - bb88 3y ago
      > My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples... I, for one, take CloudFlare at their word here. Do you not?
      - richbell 3y ago
        Matthew Prince received a massive backlash for this decision and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. As mentioned, I believe it was merely a convenient excuse to justify backtracking on his definitive promise less than 48 hours later. If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?
        bb88 3y ago
        > and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind? My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.
arp242 3y ago
If I recall correctly those posts were all from new accounts, and were largely removed by moderators. I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden. The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this. Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).
- richbell 3y ago
  Notably, the infamous picture taken outside of Keffals' alleged residence in Ireland was posted *on 4chan* by someone claiming to be a member of Kiwi Farms. If they were actually a member of Kiwi Farms, why didn't they post it on the forums? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that they weren't, and they couldn't because KF had closed new user sign ups prior to that.
- chonkerz 3y ago
  Now imagine if HN admins created a section explicitly purposed for posting Joe Biden's personal family information and stalking his family. That's what Kiwifarms actually is towards its victims. Go look at the front page of the site. There is a section named "lolcow cults" and 4 major forum sections created by the admins naming specific victims by name. I don't think I can even link to it without getting my HN account banned.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Well, yes; I'm saying it's pretty or good. But that doesn't mean everything said about it is true, either.
    - chonkerz 3y ago