Hacker News Reader

Comment by concordDance | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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

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.

Do you have any links to those forum posts?

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

> 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

that is such a circular argument. they are a microcelebrity who has spent the majority of their life being intensely tracked and harassed by a small but dedicated community, the majority of which is on kf.

The original name of kiwifarms was "CWCki", and CWC are the initials of their first victim. The entire premise of the site was harassment of a severely autistic person to trigger "funny" reactions. It's beyond gross.

What does the person being famous before the site existing have to do with harassment?

Also, what does labeling the person as trans (or anything else) have to do with harassment?

May I ask what your point or intent of these questions is?

To understand why the poster is asserting irrelevant materials. Is it their confusion or are they being purposefully obtuse. May I ask why you asked me?

Of course not. Linking to them here would probably be considered doxxing by HN's rules and get me banned here.

These threads exist. They're easy to find. I've seen them before and they're absolutely abhorrent.

Another commenter said they checked themselves

> Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327204

> Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327642

Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else. I really wish I could understand the mentality of thinking otherwise. Are you really so hung up on "thinking for yourself" that you automatically assume anything said by the mainstream media is a lie? Skepticism is great and I highly encourage it, but automatic knee-jerk rejection is not skepticism, it's basically setting you up for falling for reverse psychology. Just because the mainstream media says one thing while fringe reporters say something else does not automatically mean the mainstream is lying.

> Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else.

Two notes:

1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.

2. "Does more than zero research" is a very high bar that few meet. The number of people I've found on the internet who cite primary sources, government stats/papers and scientific papers is less than 0% to the nearest tenth of a percent. While its true that sometimes research can take half an hour or more, so often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).

Ideally everyone would do research and cite real sources, in practice less than one in a thousand do.

>1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.

That' not going to happen with its current owner.

It's been suggested that doxxing be banned before. But the owner of the site, Joshua Moon (aka null) does NOT want to do that: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/why-host-dox.130254/

(I only mention his real name because he's public about his identity, and he's sometimes referred to in the news by either name).

Here is another ocassion, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS .

There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

> It's a bullshit, paper-thin "policy" that exists only for KF to cover their own asses.

That's only your opinion. What OP says about KF is still correct.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/why-host-dox.130254/

No, it really isn't.

Addresses are public information

And I addressed this in my original comment.

> Let's make one thing clear, the only purpose for [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!"

Yes, I acknowledge it's all public, but that doesn't explain why you would want to aggregate that information and post it in a public forum and make it easier to acquire. What purpose does it achieve?

For what it's worth, there are many sites that are just about posting people's PII. Sites like doxbin, which seem to be up with impunity. I'm surprised KF got got, while DB sticks around - DB seems overall worse to me considering that it _is_ a site that is expressly created for harassment

Hopefully the cops take down that site

> the only purpose for publishing someone's home address, place of employment, phone number, etc.

I do not recall seeing those in the threads I looked at (which all have an opening post collecting information about the individual).

Can you confirm what proportion, if any, of main posts had that info? Can you also confirm that KF does not have a policy of removing that info?

I can't access kiwifarms at the moment to check, but I strongly suspect that information is in obscure posts by individuals and their "community" as a whole does not condone it and it is removed where obvious.

Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.

You aren't looking very hard

Give me some numbers and methodology. You apparently have access to the site, pick the ten top threads about people and tell us how many many post addresses, phone numbers or emails on the first page.

Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.

So, you learned what you could have learned from reading the Wikipedia article or any number of other secondary sources (which you were earlier insinuating could not be trusted on these points). I'm glad that you've proved to your own satisfaction that Kiwi Farms is exactly as awful as almost everyone consistently says that it is, but there might be a lesson here about not being irrationally skeptical of 'mainstream' sources.

It is not "exactly as awful", there have been plenty of untruths and misrepresentations stated about it, both in this comment section and elsewhere.

Primary sources analysed either a good methodology are by far the best way to learn about a subject.

You probably need to dig deeper into the kiwifarms website before you conclude things alleged about it are untrue.

Thank you for putting the effort in. I can't in good faith link to these people's dox in a comment here just to prove this to you. I would also get banned off this site for doing so.

You wouldn't have had to, just reported the proportions. That would be sufficient.

Users of the site have actually been punished for calling out people breaking the "rules".

> 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.

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

Your mistake is expecting Wikipedia to be a reliable source on issues that concern the terminally online.

>>you read up on the Kiwifarms

You should read up on what actually happened, one a unbiased source. Which si not Wikipedia.

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.

But why not take the extra 30 seconds to link (what you consider to be) an unbiased source?

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

[2]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int...

[3]https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-ne...

I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”

> 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.

Both are highly researched with Sources cited...

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.

> Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces.

Completely dismissing the content because you believe it must be biased is somewhat ironic.

Would you at least then concede that the Wikipedia article is also unreliable and biased?

> One is bordering on an attack piece.

Which one? If you're referring to the piece published by Destiny, what constitutes an "attack piece" if all the claims made are rigorously cited? Would being an attack piece invalidate the claims even if they're demonstrably true?

Not the person you responded to, but this[1] is a very thorough and well-sourced criticism of the person behind the campaign to get Kiwifarms removed from Cloudflare. Sections two and three specifically go into the lies, misrepresentation and bad journalism surrounding Kiwifarms itself if you'd prefer not to read the whole thing.

[1]https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int...

Probably because due to the nature of the issue even actual unbiased source will likely be perceived as biased. The issue is contentious enough for strong tribes to form on both sides - linking to any source in that situation means taking a risk of making either of them, or often both, hostile to you.

Moreover, if it's about the situation mentioned earlier this year on HN, it's problematic because of its complexity and gravity. Even with just facts and only facts, the change of the narrative (ie. the order you present the facts in) is enough for the same reasonable person to come to opposite conclusions. And that's before accounting for rhetorical devices that aim to manipulate the reader while still not crossing the line and sticking to facts - happily employed by both sides of the discussion in staggering quantities. (Then, of course, there's the other 90% of sources full of lies and fabrications, but let's leave those alone on HN at least...)

In short - it's not worth the hassle unless you're invested in the matter enough to care a lot, and once you are, odds are you won't post an unbiased source anyway. You'll need to do your own research, wade through a metric crapton of some of the worst humanity has to offer, and form your own opinion based on that. I don't think there's a shortcut here.

Go on the kiwifarms website itself and ask yourself if it's okay/legal to be posting this manner of personal information on harassment victims. Make your own determination from the original source. Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.

> Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.

Come on, that is the literal fucking purpose of infrastructure. Water/sewage doesn't get to refuse to flush my toilet because the content of my stool doesn't meet their nutritional expectations.

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.

I never thought an encyclopedia article would go to such extreme lengths to avoid mentioning Chris Chan

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com