People are demanding that Cloudflare drop Kiwi Farms
vice.com
vice.com
All of that said I respect Cloudflare staying neutral on this. Free speech is only free if we defend the speech we hate the most. Free speech has a bad name today but if we de-platform everything that is disagreeable we'll squash our own freedoms along with it.
One issue I have is that much of what happens there breaks laws. Cloudflare shouldn't have to step in to deal with that. Law enforcement should have the reach to bring criminals to justice offline and online.
Swatting is incredibly dangerous. I fear many see it as a prank but when you get cops with guns charging into what they think is a dangerous situation then people get hurt.
Then you have harassment laws https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/harassment.... There are specific Cyberstalking laws.
They don't harass or even troll. It's literally one of the core rules of the site. Look (and laugh) but don't touch! If you ever try to organize something on-site, you'll get down-voted, your post deleted and potentially even banned. Attempting to swat isn't just not allowed on the site, but most members call out actual attempts as stupid, dangerous and evil!
Posting publicly available info and then pointing and laughing, is not stalking or harassment.
I guess my point is that any action against them should be for specific crimes committed by law enforcement. Not de-platforming by an angry mob. The nice thing about falling back on the justice system is you need to prove your claims. So if there is no crime here then there is no action required against Kiwi Farms. But if there is then there is a valid path to justice that doesn't involve the mob getting their way without any due process.
You also have to remember where those claims are coming from.. Vice isn't exactly the most unbias or trustworthy source. Just barely above clickbait in quality and more overtly political on these types of issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Harassment
It's kind of funny that you talk about an "alleged body count" when the site literally put up an actual counter of the people whose suicide they encouraged.
[0]: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/chloe-sagal-death-12028...
[1]: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=308671
[2]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-...
It seems very much like you've been reading fud from opportunistic people.. and from the sound of it some of the same people who threw Chloe under the bus the day it happened.
The problem is that just about nobody outside of KF has any reason at all to know anything about them, besides what they hear second hand from people who are upset with them.
Saying one word on the forum even hinting at the encouragement of what they term "GayOps" - or interacting directly with / harassing the subjects, is perhaps the only bannable offense there is. And that's not a term of endearment, and this is not a wink, wink, nudge thing. I know your mind wants to reject this, but it is the case. There's no secret chatroom. If there is it's a completely separate community because they wouldn't be able to talk to the actual community about any of it. The forum OGs will attempt to mock you into submission before things get to that point. The vast majority of the users have no interest in messing with them and it is against the culture. A few people will try to talk to the subjects on Twitter and in 7 years I've never once seen it go past that. Not once.
99% of their activity is screencapping public tweets, making mean-spirited quips about them, and... and nothing. That's it. That's what they do. People aren't mad about what KF does. They think they are, because people aren't capable of thinking clearly about this, particularly when they're the targets. People are really mad about what they say. They just can't believe it's legal to say the horrible things they say. But it is. And they're mad about where and how the Kiwis direct attention. And the more postmodern targets have lately taken to yapping about what they've termed "stochastic terrorism". That's the idea that the speech on the forum raises the statistical likelihood that somebody might decide to commit a crime OR that a target might commit suicide. Stochastic terrorism. This is how they're able to say with a straight face that the Kiwis are terrorists, committing terrorism, in addition to being nazis, fascists, alt-right, inciting violence and all the standard by the book things that you people have taken to calling every single person who doesn't exercise their right to talk about shit in the way you think they should.
Almost everything I've ever read about Kiwi Farms was blatant and obvious lies with an obvious agenda.
Anything outside of that I'll admit I'm probably wrong or at best uninformed. I have no doubt that in this day and age they're being attacked in bad faith by the media.
But yes, they're attacked almost exclusively in bad faith by everybody. Everybody. As soon as somebody says "There's a website dedicated to making trans people commit suicide!" in this our Age of Outrage, there is a part of most people that wants to believe it immediately.
Which really makes me wonder why the media doesn't stick to reporting on what they actually say and do. Why isn't that bad enough? It would still make everyone mad.
If someone wants to know another's axioms, it's easy to simply preface questions with that context. Absent that, the audience will infer what the writers intentions are. Usually when the audience guesses wrong we don't blame the audience, we instead respond back with polite critique that the author's words were unclear.
Maybe I've been on the internet too much, but there's been times when it's clear the Sorcratic method was being used as a rhetorical device with great effect rather than a knowledge transference device. We can both agree that's maladaptive behavior.
This might actually be a good technique. It is very difficult to convey good faith intentions on todays internet.
People can also visit Wikipedia for more links.
Cloudflare CEO's own words: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
In short: Just claim Cloudflare are big Kiwi Farms supporters as many places you go. Eventually Matthew's ego will get bruised enough and the site will get taken down in another arbitrary manner.
Do you have anything to back that up? KF isn't even a political site.
>"Just claim Cloudflare are big Kiwi Farms supporters"
Which would be an outright lie and easily disproven.
That's some prime wordsmithing. Read it one way and it's debatably true or at least truthy. Read it another way and it's false. Confuse the two and the reader is now misinformed. Impressive rhetorical mischief.
> "hate or want to ridicule"
Is that one verb or two? Because the ridicule part is objectively true. But the hate part requires a) mind reading, and b) assuming that the feelings of a community of hundreds of people are all the same.
But you can't just say 'ridicule'. You need the 'hate' part to make your point. Hence: "hate or ridicule". As if it's all the same either way. Hate, ridicule, what's the difference? Humor, violence, what does it matter? Humor is hate, funny is violence.
I won't link to them, but here are some random threads easily obtained by Googling:
- "Is being a Nazi really that bad?" (Full of comments saying that, no, it isn't that bad, and in fact LGTB people are worse).
- "White Supremacy Megathread" (Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech).
- "Why do Kiwi Farms users so racist against blacks?" (Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site).
Just to be clear: I don't expect to convince you, because you're clearly lying constantly about the nature of the site in all your comments to defend it. I just want to provide some actual, real context for your lies.
One person giving off a list of things they think are worse who included "LGBTQ advocates" does not mean that the comment section is full of it. The thread was about the people and not the ideology.
>Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech
It was a 2 page shitpost thread full of everyone shitposting.
>Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site
This isn't true either and it was another shitpost.
>I don't expect to convince you
The approach of an outsider cherry picking threads from someone's community and then generalizing the whole community based those threads isn't effective because they know the picture you are painting of their community doesn't match what it's like to them.
Er, I don't think that's it:
> Now I can make an argument to say that we kicked them off because they they had alleged that we were supporters of theirs, or that they had harassed people who are submitting abuse complaints or lots of those things, but I think that’s a little bit hand-waving. If they had been a blog about shoes online, we would have cut them a lot more slack than we did. And if that’s the case, then that means that our feeling toward their content influenced our decision: which is the opposite of being neutral. I think that they are the exception that that shows why it’s so important to have to have rules.
- https://www.geekwire.com/2017/interview-cloudflares-ceo-stil...
If the CEO of Cloudflare thinks it's "little bit hand-waving" to say that claims of support were the reason they were dropped, I'm willing to say that's probably not it.
Is there no service provider that is a free-speech absolutist? Maybe someone needs to start that service. Unless you’re breaking an actual law, not a moral law, then you should be able to build your service and have a website.
I recommend reading https://kiwifarms.net/help/how-is-the-kiwi-farms-legal/
The site is legal and the majority of users follow the law.
>8chan, a popular website for terrorist manifestos.
It wasn't that popular of a site and it's purpose wasn't for terrorist manifestos. It's purpose was to be an image board where users could create their own boards. The global moderators took down content that was illegal to host in the US. The most popular topics of discussion were anime, politics, technology, and video games.
Since the media was biased against the site, once an excuse came up to get the site taken down they pounced. They painted a misleading picture of what the site was about in hopes they could take down the site. They won and destroyed many innocent communities that called that site their home.
> People on Twitter, as well as Sorrenti, claimed that the official Cloudflare account hid replies on its tweets related to dropping Kiwi Farms, and then deleted tweets that were ratioed by people talking about the campaign. Cloudflare’s Twitter account normally posted at least daily before this week, but hasn’t tweeted in four days, as of writing.
What is the meaning of “ratioed” in this sentence?
Keffals posts a reply tweet telling CF to drop KiwiFarms and that reply gets very many more likes than CloudFlare's original tweet.
The ratio of likes is what's referred to as "ratioed".
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
To be clear here, i'm coming from a POV that doesn't think a network infrastructure org has any business picking and choosing. That's how you break and ruin the net.
Without CloudFlare the website would still be accessible on the Internet. And to me that makes a big difference.
CF is an infrastructure service company and thus are the very LAST people who should be picking and choosing.. not if we want the net to keep working freely.
[0]: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-end...
Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and address you fucking coward.