7 ms·

Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the re

Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Christchurch_mosque_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Christchurch_mosque... edit: By the way, for all those people ripping on the ACLU and saying "they lost their way" below, they're actively defending 230 against claims of online-terrorism-by-proxy. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...

richbell 3y ago
> Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. Do you genuinely not see a problem with the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it? Christchurch was a horrific act of terrorism; that doesn't make attempting punish people for hosting or discussing content related to it justified.
- f38zf5vdt 3y ago
  There is not a country in the world that does not believe some forms of speech are worth censoring. In most of the world, CSAM is treated similarly because they don't believe people should spread depraved images of other humans being harmed. US Federal law treats animal abuse imagery in this way: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48
  - richbell 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - f38zf5vdt 3y ago
      Iran executes pedophiles, but I don't have to love the Iranian regime.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      People "ought to love" crude vigilantism?
      - richbell 3y ago
        > People "ought to love" crude vigilantism? I believe I said "you" and not "people". I'm not sure I would call documenting something online "crude vigilatiasm", but maybe that's just me.
    - habinero 3y ago
      No, they don't. They pick on people and pretend it's justice.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > No, they don't. They pick on people and pretend it's justice. You're upset that Kiwi Farms picks on people that produces animal abuse imagery? Or are you saying "they don't do that at all"? The latter is easily verifiable, you can find many instances of people and sites referencing their collection of evidence. Eg: https://twitter.com/HopefulGracidea/status/1566503226345660419 https://twitter.com/HopefulGracidea/status/15665032263456604...
  - EarlKing 3y ago
    It is irrelevant whether what other countries believe. Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) does not make your argument stronger, and indeed will just lead most people to distance themselves from you. They aren't providing material aid to terrorists, nor did they engage in those acts themselves. They're reporting on it (and in some cases reveling in it)....... but that is not illegal, nor should it be. People really should stop trying to be the mutaween of the internet. It's getting tiresome.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      > Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) The reason the world has moved on from calling it "child porn" is - because the world has generally moved on from thinking consensual pornography is always morally indefensible - because consensual pornography is generally legal - and so because "porn" doesn't truly describe what is happening It's not a euphemism. It's a clarification. A minority of pornography with adults involves abuse. But _all_ of the material you think should not be "euphemistically" called CSAM intrinsically involves abuse.
      - EarlKing 3y ago
        [flagged]
        Nursie 3y ago
        Calling it Child Sexual Abuse Material is doing exactly that. That is what is depicted, that is what has taken place to produce the material. It puts front and centre that this is abuse, categorically and by definition, not 'porn'.
        didntcheck 3y ago
        Why would that not be "porn"? I would define that as "material intended to sexually arouse the particular audience". Merriam-Webster appears to largely agree The material being harmful and produced via abuse doesn't remove it from that definition, in the same way that rape isn't removed from the definition of "sex"
- chonkerz 3y ago
  [flagged]
jubbajibba 3y ago
[flagged]
- greyface- 3y ago
  > If you don't like it, don't read it. It's really that simple. If there's a thread on the site about you, this isn't an option.
  - jubbajibba 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - greyface- 3y ago
      The people there will physically find you and insert themselves into your life in dangerous and unpleasant ways.
      - jubbajibba 3y ago
        [flagged]
        greyface- 3y ago
        From the perspective of the person being harassed, what difference does this make?
        habinero 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
throwaway56101 3y ago
>during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. You don't remember LiveLeak and Saddam Hussein's execution being leaked all over the internet?
cf141q5325 3y ago
It should be mentioned that some intelligence agencies have an involvement in extremist groups. Like the Soviet Union supported urban guerillas in the west or Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine. With them then purposefully spreading stuff like Christchurch manifest translations through people involved with Azov to pump their "international far right" image. Trying to solve that problem through attempts to quell public discourse and dictate limits of conversation are misguided and self destructive. Its a race to the bottom as a byproduct of short term power politics. Its not like western actors arent also doing it, strategy of tension in Italy for example. Having a bogey man can be quite beneficial. There being a communication channel with reduced moderation is hardly the root cause. I would argue its quite the contrary, the heavier you get involved in controlling discourse, the easier it becomes to saw tension. edit: As an example >Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/15/defend-the-white-race-american-extremists-being-co-opted-by-ukraines-far-right/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/15/def... >In an interview published by Azov’s online podcast in May 2015, Korotkih fawned over the Islamic State, and compared the Azov Regiment to the group. >“I can’t accept ISIS ideology but they’re awesome in what they do. I enjoy their movies very much. I drool over what’s going on in the territories they control”, Korotkih proclaimed during the interview (00:32:45 into the interview), in which he also characterized ISIS as “heroes of that time.” You might know him as the head of paramilitary training of the NSO in Ross Kemps visit to Moscow. With the NSO likely being part of the same Vladislav Surkov project as BORN. https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-neonazi-ilya-goryachev-was-jailed-for-life-for-a-string-of-hate-killings-in-russia/news-story/b12ac7c043dc2a741a4d96030257e400 https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-neonazi-ilya-go... Sergei Korotkikh and the NSO and FSB https://www.ft.com/content/21553438-fcda-11df-ae2d-00144feab49a https://www.ft.com/content/21553438-fcda-11df-ae2d-00144feab... Ross Kemp (introduction in the gym to the NSO in the first few minutes. In case you watch it, the badly faked videos they made were a cover for the police to not investigate attacks on migrant workers. Tesak grew a concision in prison and got tortured and executed through "suicide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1q3pCfed0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1q3pCfed0 Before Tesak was famously used as a bogeyman for Russia's liberal opposition when he came to a book club where Navalny held a discussion.

richbell 3y ago

> Yeah, sheesh. KF is a website that gleefully reposts terrorist murder videos treated with the same legal penalties as CSAM in other countries, and during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. Do you genuinely not see a problem with the New Zealand police ordering websites to remove content they dislike and hand over user information about anyone who so much as discussed it? Christchurch was a horrific act of terrorism; that doesn't make attempting punish people for hosting or discussing content related to it justified.

f38zf5vdt 3y ago
There is not a country in the world that does not believe some forms of speech are worth censoring. In most of the world, CSAM is treated similarly because they don't believe people should spread depraved images of other humans being harmed. US Federal law treats animal abuse imagery in this way: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48
- richbell 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - f38zf5vdt 3y ago
    Iran executes pedophiles, but I don't have to love the Iranian regime.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    People "ought to love" crude vigilantism?
    - richbell 3y ago
      > People "ought to love" crude vigilantism? I believe I said "you" and not "people". I'm not sure I would call documenting something online "crude vigilatiasm", but maybe that's just me.
  - habinero 3y ago
    No, they don't. They pick on people and pretend it's justice.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > No, they don't. They pick on people and pretend it's justice. You're upset that Kiwi Farms picks on people that produces animal abuse imagery? Or are you saying "they don't do that at all"? The latter is easily verifiable, you can find many instances of people and sites referencing their collection of evidence. Eg: https://twitter.com/HopefulGracidea/status/1566503226345660419 https://twitter.com/HopefulGracidea/status/15665032263456604...
- EarlKing 3y ago
  It is irrelevant whether what other countries believe. Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) does not make your argument stronger, and indeed will just lead most people to distance themselves from you. They aren't providing material aid to terrorists, nor did they engage in those acts themselves. They're reporting on it (and in some cases reveling in it)....... but that is not illegal, nor should it be. People really should stop trying to be the mutaween of the internet. It's getting tiresome.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    > Attempting to equate this with child porn (yes, call it what it is rather than the euphemism-du-jour CSAM) The reason the world has moved on from calling it "child porn" is - because the world has generally moved on from thinking consensual pornography is always morally indefensible - because consensual pornography is generally legal - and so because "porn" doesn't truly describe what is happening It's not a euphemism. It's a clarification. A minority of pornography with adults involves abuse. But _all_ of the material you think should not be "euphemistically" called CSAM intrinsically involves abuse.
    - EarlKing 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Nursie 3y ago
        Calling it Child Sexual Abuse Material is doing exactly that. That is what is depicted, that is what has taken place to produce the material. It puts front and centre that this is abuse, categorically and by definition, not 'porn'.
        didntcheck 3y ago
        Why would that not be "porn"? I would define that as "material intended to sexually arouse the particular audience". Merriam-Webster appears to largely agree The material being harmful and produced via abuse doesn't remove it from that definition, in the same way that rape isn't removed from the definition of "sex"
chonkerz 3y ago
[flagged]

jubbajibba 3y ago

[flagged]

greyface- 3y ago
> If you don't like it, don't read it. It's really that simple. If there's a thread on the site about you, this isn't an option.
- jubbajibba 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - greyface- 3y ago
    The people there will physically find you and insert themselves into your life in dangerous and unpleasant ways.
    - jubbajibba 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - greyface- 3y ago
        From the perspective of the person being harassed, what difference does this make?
      - habinero 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

throwaway56101 3y ago

>during the reign of ISIS and the Taliban I don't recall people sitting around defending the need for that particular free speech. You don't remember LiveLeak and Saddam Hussein's execution being leaked all over the internet?

cf141q5325 3y ago

It should be mentioned that some intelligence agencies have an involvement in extremist groups. Like the Soviet Union supported urban guerillas in the west or Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine. With them then purposefully spreading stuff like Christchurch manifest translations through people involved with Azov to pump their "international far right" image. Trying to solve that problem through attempts to quell public discourse and dictate limits of conversation are misguided and self destructive. Its a race to the bottom as a byproduct of short term power politics. Its not like western actors arent also doing it, strategy of tension in Italy for example. Having a bogey man can be quite beneficial. There being a communication channel with reduced moderation is hardly the root cause. I would argue its quite the contrary, the heavier you get involved in controlling discourse, the easier it becomes to saw tension. edit: As an example >Russia dumping its Neonazis (who happened to kill Kremlin-critical journalists) into the Ukraine https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/15/defend-the-white-race-american-extremists-being-co-opted-by-ukraines-far-right/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/02/15/def... >In an interview published by Azov’s online podcast in May 2015, Korotkih fawned over the Islamic State, and compared the Azov Regiment to the group. >“I can’t accept ISIS ideology but they’re awesome in what they do. I enjoy their movies very much. I drool over what’s going on in the territories they control”, Korotkih proclaimed during the interview (00:32:45 into the interview), in which he also characterized ISIS as “heroes of that time.” You might know him as the head of paramilitary training of the NSO in Ross Kemps visit to Moscow. With the NSO likely being part of the same Vladislav Surkov project as BORN. https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-neonazi-ilya-goryachev-was-jailed-for-life-for-a-string-of-hate-killings-in-russia/news-story/b12ac7c043dc2a741a4d96030257e400 https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russian-neonazi-ilya-go... Sergei Korotkikh and the NSO and FSB https://www.ft.com/content/21553438-fcda-11df-ae2d-00144feab49a https://www.ft.com/content/21553438-fcda-11df-ae2d-00144feab... Ross Kemp (introduction in the gym to the NSO in the first few minutes. In case you watch it, the badly faked videos they made were a cover for the police to not investigate attacks on migrant workers. Tesak grew a concision in prison and got tortured and executed through "suicide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1q3pCfed0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv1q3pCfed0 Before Tesak was famously used as a bogeyman for Russia's liberal opposition when he came to a book club where Navalny held a discussion.