Calling it harassment is like calling the moon a "space rock" - technically true I guess, but missing the magnitude.
stochastic terrorism is new speak itself, if redefining inaction to be action, is it redefining silence to be violence, it transitioning from a society focuses on first party liability (i.e am i only responsible for my own actions not the actions of others) to a collectivist mentality of not only am I responsible for my own actions but for the actions of everyone connected to me
The term "stochastic terrorism" means terror attacks like school shootings, swattings, and driving trucks into protestors that happen with a certain statistical likelihood, but whose individual events cannot be predicted.
But the slippery slope I had in mind, however, was that once Cloudflare submits to the pressure of Keffals against this odious site, that precedent will be set, and then another pressure group will emerge targeting a slightly less odious site, etc.
Also there is a big difference between actions of people that also happen to be members of a website and activity taking place on the website. I abhor third party liability
In the case os 8chan and daily stormer they were banned for actions and content on the site. Not for actions of people that may be affiliated with the site as anonymous users
https://london.ctvnews.ca/doxed-transgender-activist-twitch-...
There's one citation.
Byuu/Near, the author of the incredible bsnes project, was harassed to suicide by kiwi farms.
https://kotaku.com/the-brilliant-snes-emulator-creator-known...
The site posted the video and manifesto of the Christchurch shooting.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/website-kiwi-farms...
So there, three different citations that, themselves link out to other news and reputable primary sources showing the site, including the owner of the site, are involved in stochastic terrorism and, quote, "the exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement".
Ok, and? I 100% disagree with the active censorship around current events we see every day, from police shootings to terrorism people should be forced to confront the raw reality of the world not a candy coated version put through the filters of main stream media.
>So there, three different citations that,
No those are claims that do not really have a fact based narrative behind them, further even if the claims are taken at face value you are blaming the site for actions of people off the site that may be members, 3d party liability.
Going back to the 8Chan, and Daily Stormer they were banned for illegal content ON THE SITE, not because members of the site did things off that site.
Posting mean or even offensive things on a website should never be a bannable event, and to the extent people are taking actions offsite, or offline to the point of direct harassment, swatting etc those INDIVIDUALS should be criminally prosecuted for their own actions
And if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting, you are straight up unwilling to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion, and are appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals.
Not in the US it is not.
>>if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting,
Nothing in the London story has any comments from the police dept at all, it is all third party accounts by the target of the swatting who they claim with out evidence that it was a member of Kiwi Farms.
Even if that is true i bet that same person has a Twitter account, Facebook account, Reddit account, Amazon Account, and probably accounts at several other sites. Are we going to ban every site that a person commits a swatting has a membership at? or just the site that are small and do not align with your personal politics?
>appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals
There is a lot of appeals to emotions when it comes to this story, I am not one of them, I have a firm principle stand in support for Free Speech to include speech that people find offensive or even "harmful" or "hateful".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/sorrenti-keffals-swatt...
The police confirm the swatting and confirm it was a mistake.
Second I am not disputing a swatting occurred, I am disputing that the swatting was a direct result of the ownership of Kiwi Farms or supported by the Ownership (or even the majority of the members) of the site.
Nowhere in any of your sources to the Police attribute the swatting to Kiwi Farms