3 ms·
Of course it's possible, though without evidence it's baseless speculation. I'm pretty sure the Kiwi Farms is protected by section 230, so unless the owner was
by richbell 3y ago
Of course it's possible, though without evidence it's baseless speculation. I'm pretty sure the Kiwi Farms is protected by section 230, so unless the owner was personally involved in these threats to life (which I doubt) what reason would there be to keep them in the dark?
Only Matthew Prince can shed light on the truth, but if he hasn't by now I doubt he ever will.
- chonkerz 3y agoThe owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with. Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.
- richbell 3y ago> The owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with. That's an interesting legal theory. > Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court. An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.
- chonkerz 3y ago>An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true. Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true
- richbell 3y ago> Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true My personal feelings are irrelevant. I judge claims based on the veracity of their evidence, as should everyone.