7 ms·

The issue there is that as best I can tell, kiwifarms the site doesn't break any laws. It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. Ind

The issue there is that as best I can tell, kiwifarms the site doesn't break any laws. It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. Individual users may harass people but as far as I could tell from my previous skim they do not organize this harassment in the open. And requiring service providers to monitor private communications for organisation of harassment seems Orwellian to me. (Intuition pump: imagine the postal service opening every letter to check to see if someone's organising a letter writing campaign sending abuse to George Washington) As does prohibiting people saying unpleasant things about semi-public figures in public.

roenxi 3y ago
If you read up on the Kiwifarms Wikipedia page [0] it sounds like someone needs to go to jail. Until this moment I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence - but now I can see it. If the site doesn't break laws then there is no reason to ban it. But there are criminals using that site and they should be caught. Banning the site is just dodging the real problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
- account42 3y ago
  Your mistake is expecting Wikipedia to be a reliable source on issues that concern the terminally online.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>you read up on the Kiwifarms You should read up on what actually happened, one a unbiased source. Which si not Wikipedia.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Specifically, wikipedia is not an unbiased source on any issue that is of particular concern to the terminally online. Anything to do with US politics or culture war is going to be heavily distorted due to the nature of the beast (its something people care a lot about, there were strong founder effects and there was a purity spiral). The sources that are allowed/disallowed and their respective biases (e.g. what they publish or don't say) are a big factor.
  - me_again 3y ago
    But why not take the extra 30 seconds to link (what you consider to be) an unbiased source?
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      I have in the past[1], several times It gets old having the same false things posted over and over. often my posts[1] with the linked are also "flagged" because people here do not want to truth, they want the narrative. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807942 [2]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-internet https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int... [3]https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-ne...
      - tomtheelder 3y ago
        I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”
        richbell 3y ago
        > I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.” The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        Both are highly researched with Sources cited...
        tomtheelder 3y ago
        Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces. One is bordering on an attack piece.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  That Wikipedia article is full of unverifiable bullshit, and I think you know it. > I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence It doesn't unless you interpret every instance of adversity as an attempt on your life. Nobody trying to kill anybody sends a pizza, unless the intent is to induce poisoning or choking. > [Wikipedia] Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her "Leaked" sounds so much worse than the truth of the photos being found on a 2257-compliant commercial porn site, which Keffals willingly worked as a onetime model for under a 4-letter pseudonym. To say they were "leaked" is being intentionally dishonest. They were available for sale, by the studio that took them. Users shared the preview images that were publicly posted, because nobody involved felt they were worth paying for. Don't take my word for it; anyone can see for themselves-- they're helpfully posted in her KF thread, if the site is even up anymore.
- skhr0680 3y ago
  I never thought an encyclopedia article would go to such extreme lengths to avoid mentioning Chris Chan
OskarS 3y ago
> Intuition pump: imagine the postal service opening every letter to check to see if someone's organising a letter writing campaign sending abuse to George Washington Just on this specific point: this is not a particularly weird scenario at all. There are very strong rules about what you can and cannot send in the mail, and these rules are enforced. The most obvious example is the Comstock laws, which regulate "obscene and immoral materials" sent through the mail (including things like information about birth control). They're from the 1800s, but several are still on the books. It's not a strange concept at all in American law to regulate what can and cannot be sent through the mail.
dmitri_ignat 3y ago
I'm curious what the function of publishing a targets home address, personal phone number, place of employment, and so on is supposed to be if they don't condone harassment. One might suspect that the rule against harrassment is just paper-thin ass-covering. Officially they'll also tell you they just collate and archive freely available information, while for example publishing and micro-analyzing the hacked bank statements of a streamer they don't like, with enthusiastic support from the moderators.
- chonkerz 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pseg134 3y ago
    Reasonable people disagreeing is not evidence of astroturfing or disinformation. It is possible for people to just disagree with you. There is no organized conspiracy against your viewpoint.
    - chonkerz 3y ago
      They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
  - bloopernova 3y ago
    It's annoying that they're trying to remove your comment via downvoting. It's amazing to me that some people are so determined to defend KF when it appears that the best defense they have is: "no suicides have been definitively linked to KF." I know their public reason is all about censorship etc, but I'd like to know what their private reason really is.
    - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. I imagine the moderators giving the same "No, please, don't do this" with the exact same level of authority as Willy Wonka telling people "no don't": https://youtu.be/W9ZD3_ppcPE https://youtu.be/W9ZD3_ppcPE It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses. Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for publishing someone's home address, place of employment, phone number, etc. (aka, "doxxing") is to condone harassment of that individual. Any claims otherwise are completely bad faith and bullshit. Nobody believes you. Stop claiming "Oh, but this information is publicly available!" If KF truly discouraged harassment, they'd do what every other sane site does and immediately delete the post and ban the user that posted it.
- gorwell 3y ago
  Do you have any links to those forum posts?
  - parl_match 3y ago
    go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc
    - richbell 3y ago
      > go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc Chris Chan has been a notorious and divisive figure online long before the existence of the Kiwi Farms. They are arguably one of the most well-known Internet personalities. Merely referring to them as "a trans woman" throws away a massive amount of context why Kiwi Farms (and many other sites) seems so obsessed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dcposch 3y ago
The EFF said it best: > Just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one Problem: a forum full of misanthropes dedicated to saying the worst things allowed under the first amendment. Bad solution: erode 1A at the case law level Bad solution: censor the internet at the backbone level Freedom isn't free. We're lucky to live in country with robust speech protections. The tradeoff is that there will always be some people who get a kick out of going right to edge of what they can get away. My view is that our civil liberties are worth it.

roenxi 3y ago

If you read up on the Kiwifarms Wikipedia page [0] it sounds like someone needs to go to jail. Until this moment I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence - but now I can see it. If the site doesn't break laws then there is no reason to ban it. But there are criminals using that site and they should be caught. Banning the site is just dodging the real problem. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms

account42 3y ago
Your mistake is expecting Wikipedia to be a reliable source on issues that concern the terminally online.
phpisthebest 3y ago
>>you read up on the Kiwifarms You should read up on what actually happened, one a unbiased source. Which si not Wikipedia.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Specifically, wikipedia is not an unbiased source on any issue that is of particular concern to the terminally online. Anything to do with US politics or culture war is going to be heavily distorted due to the nature of the beast (its something people care a lot about, there were strong founder effects and there was a purity spiral). The sources that are allowed/disallowed and their respective biases (e.g. what they publish or don't say) are a big factor.
- me_again 3y ago
  But why not take the extra 30 seconds to link (what you consider to be) an unbiased source?
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    I have in the past[1], several times It gets old having the same false things posted over and over. often my posts[1] with the linked are also "flagged" because people here do not want to truth, they want the narrative. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807942 [2]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-internet https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int... [3]https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-ne...
    - tomtheelder 3y ago
      I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”
      - richbell 3y ago
        > I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.” The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        Both are highly researched with Sources cited...
        tomtheelder 3y ago
        Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces. One is bordering on an attack piece.
jstarfish 3y ago
That Wikipedia article is full of unverifiable bullshit, and I think you know it. > I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence It doesn't unless you interpret every instance of adversity as an attempt on your life. Nobody trying to kill anybody sends a pizza, unless the intent is to induce poisoning or choking. > [Wikipedia] Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her "Leaked" sounds so much worse than the truth of the photos being found on a 2257-compliant commercial porn site, which Keffals willingly worked as a onetime model for under a 4-letter pseudonym. To say they were "leaked" is being intentionally dishonest. They were available for sale, by the studio that took them. Users shared the preview images that were publicly posted, because nobody involved felt they were worth paying for. Don't take my word for it; anyone can see for themselves-- they're helpfully posted in her KF thread, if the site is even up anymore.
skhr0680 3y ago
I never thought an encyclopedia article would go to such extreme lengths to avoid mentioning Chris Chan

OskarS 3y ago

> Intuition pump: imagine the postal service opening every letter to check to see if someone's organising a letter writing campaign sending abuse to George Washington Just on this specific point: this is not a particularly weird scenario at all. There are very strong rules about what you can and cannot send in the mail, and these rules are enforced. The most obvious example is the Comstock laws, which regulate "obscene and immoral materials" sent through the mail (including things like information about birth control). They're from the 1800s, but several are still on the books. It's not a strange concept at all in American law to regulate what can and cannot be sent through the mail.

dmitri_ignat 3y ago

I'm curious what the function of publishing a targets home address, personal phone number, place of employment, and so on is supposed to be if they don't condone harassment. One might suspect that the rule against harrassment is just paper-thin ass-covering. Officially they'll also tell you they just collate and archive freely available information, while for example publishing and micro-analyzing the hacked bank statements of a streamer they don't like, with enthusiastic support from the moderators.

chonkerz 3y ago
[flagged]
- pseg134 3y ago
  Reasonable people disagreeing is not evidence of astroturfing or disinformation. It is possible for people to just disagree with you. There is no organized conspiracy against your viewpoint.
  - chonkerz 3y ago
    They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  It's annoying that they're trying to remove your comment via downvoting. It's amazing to me that some people are so determined to defend KF when it appears that the best defense they have is: "no suicides have been definitively linked to KF." I know their public reason is all about censorship etc, but I'd like to know what their private reason really is.
  - LawTalkingGuy 3y ago

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

> It officially discourages actual harassment of the people it insults. I imagine the moderators giving the same "No, please, don't do this" with the exact same level of authority as Willy Wonka telling people "no don't": https://youtu.be/W9ZD3_ppcPE https://youtu.be/W9ZD3_ppcPE It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses. Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for publishing someone's home address, place of employment, phone number, etc. (aka, "doxxing") is to condone harassment of that individual. Any claims otherwise are completely bad faith and bullshit. Nobody believes you. Stop claiming "Oh, but this information is publicly available!" If KF truly discouraged harassment, they'd do what every other sane site does and immediately delete the post and ban the user that posted it.

gorwell 3y ago
Do you have any links to those forum posts?
- parl_match 3y ago
  go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc
  - richbell 3y ago
    > go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc Chris Chan has been a notorious and divisive figure online long before the existence of the Kiwi Farms. They are arguably one of the most well-known Internet personalities. Merely referring to them as "a trans woman" throws away a massive amount of context why Kiwi Farms (and many other sites) seems so obsessed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dcposch 3y ago

The EFF said it best: > Just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one Problem: a forum full of misanthropes dedicated to saying the worst things allowed under the first amendment. Bad solution: erode 1A at the case law level Bad solution: censor the internet at the backbone level Freedom isn't free. We're lucky to live in country with robust speech protections. The tradeoff is that there will always be some people who get a kick out of going right to edge of what they can get away. My view is that our civil liberties are worth it.