4 ms·

> The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirite

> The amount of attention KiwiFarms gets is ridiculously outsized for what it is: a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes" The site is probably one of the only sources of actual gang stalking on the planet, and when it isn't stalking and harassing people on an industrial scale, it also moonlights as a suicide factory. The psychopaths that run and participate on the site are proud of their body count.

richbell 3y ago
[flagged]
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  As someone who agrees ISPs shouldn't get to be judge, jury, and executioner on censorship, I find it really odd when people go out of their ways to defend absolute cesspits every time the censorship issue comes up. Kiwi Farms is an irredeemable cesspit by every measure I can see, and accepting that makes your argument stronger. Trying to act like it's an innocent place, or this place is ok because you're familiar with 100 even worse places just makes you look unreasonable. All it serves to do is muddy the waters between being anti-censorship and being pro-cesspit, and I'm not the former.
  - richbell 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - vintermann 3y ago
      In their speak, "Is this the hill you want to die on". In other words, if there's something redeemable going on on KF, do you really want to even know? Because then your options are to stick your head out for unsympathetic people, or feeling bad about what's going on.
  - arp242 3y ago
    But this is a very dangerous argument you're making: "who cares if people are making up complete nonsense about them, they're bad anyway?!" I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but that is more or less the core of your argument. I don't want to "defend" anyone; I just want to have an accurate understanding of the truth, insofar that's possible. It bothers me so much misinformation is being spread about this and I think this is also harmful overall for many reasons. This was, IMHO, also the problem with Stallman: yes, Stallman was/is not good and should have stepped down a million years ago (in my opinion, anyway), but no, he's not a transphobic sexist nonce and most of those claims are complete bollocks. But hey, who's going to defend an asshole like Stallman? Especially when a significant section of his more fanatical fanbase is so ... unpleasant (in my experience, anyway)?
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      It's infinitely more dangerous to reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". If someone bad mouths a cesspit by mixing up which stalking cases they're involved with, when said place was literally founded and named around stalking someone... I reserve the right to say that's an acceptable mistake of absolutely no consequence to a conversation about censorship. I also reserve the right to do say so without unilaterally declaring that it's ok to make up facts about anyone in existence the moment said they're deemed to have done something wrong. That's the kind of nuance in thinking we aim to instill in children from a very young age.
      - arp242 3y ago
        > reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". I never said any such thing or made any such argument. The disagreement is about which events have occurred at all, and it's not about "mixing up" minor details.
        BoorishBears 3y ago
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    KF is an irredeemable cesspit but so is Twitter and so is Tumblr, if you know where to look. There's no difference between what progressives do freely on Twitter/Tumblr and what Farmers do. KF worst actions are only possible because they amplify their harassment of targets by using "woke" optics on twitter to draw corporate backing and media attention against their victims.
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      This is exactly what I mean. The conversation is anti-censorship, and your hill to die on is the place named after the person they were trying to bully is just like the place where if you dig across the 450 million monthly users you'll find bad actors. At the end of the day you're just elevating a sideshow above the actual anti-censorship argument at the cost of the former, but honestly it's not much sweat of my back. At the end of the day censorship is just the next net neutrality: sideshows based on the most useless cases of its risks burn all the oxygen in the room, no action against it taken, and the world moves on.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        “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.” — Commonly attributed to H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        I think that was pithier in your head... The defense he's speaking of isn't in saying the scoundrel isn't a scoundrel, it's against the oppressor. That's why he still called them scoundrels.
        hnbad 3y ago
        Also the person the quote is attributed had some abhorrent views most people who share them have the good sense to only vaguely alude to through veiled references to Ayn Rand and questionable race science articles. He was not exactly a defender of democracy and equal rights.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vintermann 3y ago
    It's far from innocent. But they also talk about some things that others aggressively try scrubbing from the internet, which shouldn't be scrubbed from the internet. Cesspits suck, but if a cesspit is the last place you can talk about, say, the criminal indictments of a powerful influencer or moderator, then we have bigger problem than that the place stinks.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  "Unlike other sites dedicated to harassing Internet users until they commit suicide, KF is public and has a rule against harassing Internet users until they commit suicide" isn't the defense you think it is. It's perfectly reasonable to push against censorship, but KF being censored isn't a reason to portray them in any sort of favorable light.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > KF is public and has a rule against harassing Internet users until they commit suicide You're putting words into my mouth. Kiwi Farms has rules against harassment and bans anyone who does. There is a long history of communities organized specifically to troll people in real life (Something Awful, Sons of Kojima, The Idea Guys, etc.) Kiwi Farms is explicitly not that. Do people say mean and hateful things on it? Sure. But I've yet to see any actual examples of these alleged harassment campaigns, which should be easy to find considering that the site is open.
    - tadfisher 3y ago
      You will have a very hard time convincing folks that KF should not be censored because they aren't as bad as other sites. As someone who doesn't frequent these places, I will concede that you may be right, but the point has sailed over your head and into outer space.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > As someone who doesn't frequent these places, I will concede that you may be right, but the point has sailed over your head and into outer space. I disagree. The entire impetus behind getting Kiwi Farms removed from Cloudflare, having their domains revoked, having their phone numbers and registered agents cancel service, attempting to blackhole them from the Internet, etc. is that they are literally the worst website, so there is no need to feel bad or give them a fair "trial". If such outrage can be wielded to completely deplatform Kiwi Farms extrajudicially, it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  > There are dozens of sites like the Kiwi Farms, many even have "farm" in their name. I'm aware. The OP is talking about KF. > There are also completely unaffiliated sites such as Doxbin, which were responsible for a large amount of the harassment and doxing against Keffals. There's a tweet (xeet?) somewhere where she acknowledged that she knew Kiwi Farms wasn't actually responsible, but didn't care. I have no idea who Keffals is or why you'd think I'd care.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > I have no idea who Keffals is or why you'd think I'd care. Keffals is one of the people responsible for the chain of events leading to what is happening. If you aren't familiar with the context and don't care to learn about it, what is the purpose of commenting?
    - heavyset_go 3y ago
      You do realize there are other people the site has harassed and killed, right? And afterwards, things just like this took place? You seem obsessed with this Keffals person, it looks a bit unhealthy to me. Look beyond your obsession at the other people who were affected by these psychopaths.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > You seem obsessed with this Keffals person, it looks a bit unhealthy to me. Look beyond your obsession at the other people who were affected by these psychopaths. I'm not sure how mentioning a person directly relevant to the linked article in a single comment counts as being "obsessed". > You do realize there are other people the site has harassed and killed, right? And afterwards, things just like this took place? Allegedly. I have yet to find a claim that stands up to scrutiny as sites either link to news stories repeating unsubstantiated claims made by someone (alongside factual errors like that the owner of Kiwi Farms lives with his mother, or that he is wanted by law enforcement) or provide no sources whatsoever.
- _cenw 3y ago
  We all know that rule essentially just means don't shit where you eat. But keep sharing "public information" here! If Josh wants to obscure the purpose of his website behind legal technicalities, he can do that. Doesn't change the purpose of the website.
arp242 3y ago
[flagged]

richbell 3y ago

[flagged]

BoorishBears 3y ago
As someone who agrees ISPs shouldn't get to be judge, jury, and executioner on censorship, I find it really odd when people go out of their ways to defend absolute cesspits every time the censorship issue comes up. Kiwi Farms is an irredeemable cesspit by every measure I can see, and accepting that makes your argument stronger. Trying to act like it's an innocent place, or this place is ok because you're familiar with 100 even worse places just makes you look unreasonable. All it serves to do is muddy the waters between being anti-censorship and being pro-cesspit, and I'm not the former.
- richbell 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - vintermann 3y ago
    In their speak, "Is this the hill you want to die on". In other words, if there's something redeemable going on on KF, do you really want to even know? Because then your options are to stick your head out for unsympathetic people, or feeling bad about what's going on.
- arp242 3y ago
  But this is a very dangerous argument you're making: "who cares if people are making up complete nonsense about them, they're bad anyway?!" I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but that is more or less the core of your argument. I don't want to "defend" anyone; I just want to have an accurate understanding of the truth, insofar that's possible. It bothers me so much misinformation is being spread about this and I think this is also harmful overall for many reasons. This was, IMHO, also the problem with Stallman: yes, Stallman was/is not good and should have stepped down a million years ago (in my opinion, anyway), but no, he's not a transphobic sexist nonce and most of those claims are complete bollocks. But hey, who's going to defend an asshole like Stallman? Especially when a significant section of his more fanatical fanbase is so ... unpleasant (in my experience, anyway)?
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    It's infinitely more dangerous to reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". If someone bad mouths a cesspit by mixing up which stalking cases they're involved with, when said place was literally founded and named around stalking someone... I reserve the right to say that's an acceptable mistake of absolutely no consequence to a conversation about censorship. I also reserve the right to do say so without unilaterally declaring that it's ok to make up facts about anyone in existence the moment said they're deemed to have done something wrong. That's the kind of nuance in thinking we aim to instill in children from a very young age.
    - arp242 3y ago
      > reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". I never said any such thing or made any such argument. The disagreement is about which events have occurred at all, and it's not about "mixing up" minor details.
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  KF is an irredeemable cesspit but so is Twitter and so is Tumblr, if you know where to look. There's no difference between what progressives do freely on Twitter/Tumblr and what Farmers do. KF worst actions are only possible because they amplify their harassment of targets by using "woke" optics on twitter to draw corporate backing and media attention against their victims.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    This is exactly what I mean. The conversation is anti-censorship, and your hill to die on is the place named after the person they were trying to bully is just like the place where if you dig across the 450 million monthly users you'll find bad actors. At the end of the day you're just elevating a sideshow above the actual anti-censorship argument at the cost of the former, but honestly it's not much sweat of my back. At the end of the day censorship is just the next net neutrality: sideshows based on the most useless cases of its risks burn all the oxygen in the room, no action against it taken, and the world moves on.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      “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.” — Commonly attributed to H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        I think that was pithier in your head... The defense he's speaking of isn't in saying the scoundrel isn't a scoundrel, it's against the oppressor. That's why he still called them scoundrels.
        hnbad 3y ago
        Also the person the quote is attributed had some abhorrent views most people who share them have the good sense to only vaguely alude to through veiled references to Ayn Rand and questionable race science articles. He was not exactly a defender of democracy and equal rights.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 3y ago
  It's far from innocent. But they also talk about some things that others aggressively try scrubbing from the internet, which shouldn't be scrubbed from the internet. Cesspits suck, but if a cesspit is the last place you can talk about, say, the criminal indictments of a powerful influencer or moderator, then we have bigger problem than that the place stinks.
tadfisher 3y ago
"Unlike other sites dedicated to harassing Internet users until they commit suicide, KF is public and has a rule against harassing Internet users until they commit suicide" isn't the defense you think it is. It's perfectly reasonable to push against censorship, but KF being censored isn't a reason to portray them in any sort of favorable light.
- richbell 3y ago
  > KF is public and has a rule against harassing Internet users until they commit suicide You're putting words into my mouth. Kiwi Farms has rules against harassment and bans anyone who does. There is a long history of communities organized specifically to troll people in real life (Something Awful, Sons of Kojima, The Idea Guys, etc.) Kiwi Farms is explicitly not that. Do people say mean and hateful things on it? Sure. But I've yet to see any actual examples of these alleged harassment campaigns, which should be easy to find considering that the site is open.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    You will have a very hard time convincing folks that KF should not be censored because they aren't as bad as other sites. As someone who doesn't frequent these places, I will concede that you may be right, but the point has sailed over your head and into outer space.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > As someone who doesn't frequent these places, I will concede that you may be right, but the point has sailed over your head and into outer space. I disagree. The entire impetus behind getting Kiwi Farms removed from Cloudflare, having their domains revoked, having their phone numbers and registered agents cancel service, attempting to blackhole them from the Internet, etc. is that they are literally the worst website, so there is no need to feel bad or give them a fair "trial". If such outrage can be wielded to completely deplatform Kiwi Farms extrajudicially, it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> There are dozens of sites like the Kiwi Farms, many even have "farm" in their name. I'm aware. The OP is talking about KF. > There are also completely unaffiliated sites such as Doxbin, which were responsible for a large amount of the harassment and doxing against Keffals. There's a tweet (xeet?) somewhere where she acknowledged that she knew Kiwi Farms wasn't actually responsible, but didn't care. I have no idea who Keffals is or why you'd think I'd care.
- richbell 3y ago
  > I have no idea who Keffals is or why you'd think I'd care. Keffals is one of the people responsible for the chain of events leading to what is happening. If you aren't familiar with the context and don't care to learn about it, what is the purpose of commenting?
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    You do realize there are other people the site has harassed and killed, right? And afterwards, things just like this took place? You seem obsessed with this Keffals person, it looks a bit unhealthy to me. Look beyond your obsession at the other people who were affected by these psychopaths.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > You seem obsessed with this Keffals person, it looks a bit unhealthy to me. Look beyond your obsession at the other people who were affected by these psychopaths. I'm not sure how mentioning a person directly relevant to the linked article in a single comment counts as being "obsessed". > You do realize there are other people the site has harassed and killed, right? And afterwards, things just like this took place? Allegedly. I have yet to find a claim that stands up to scrutiny as sites either link to news stories repeating unsubstantiated claims made by someone (alongside factual errors like that the owner of Kiwi Farms lives with his mother, or that he is wanted by law enforcement) or provide no sources whatsoever.
_cenw 3y ago
We all know that rule essentially just means don't shit where you eat. But keep sharing "public information" here! If Josh wants to obscure the purpose of his website behind legal technicalities, he can do that. Doesn't change the purpose of the website.

arp242 3y ago

[flagged]