I personally dislike Josh (moreso the ugly parts of the farms, actually), but strongly agree with him on this particular issue. The open Internet is extremely important to civil liberties.
And if well-connected geeks can massage their online profiles, call in favours from unelected moderators, hide pertinent facts about themselves... what's to stop all manner of awful behaviour from being covered up? What's to stop petty business owners from destroying their rivals?
I'm also tired of seeing people say "It's a private company, they can do what they want." I don't know why the average person is so enthusiastic about the idea of getting taken for a ride by huge corporations.
It's especially humorous when you see those same people claiming that talking out the other side of their mouth about the danger of fascists.
"Perception is reality".
- Lee Atwater (GOP Consultant)
> I'm also tired of seeing people say "It's a private company, they can do what they want."
A lot of people (many of them smart) don't realize that there is a distinction between the first amendment and the general principle of free speech, which precedes the first amendment.
Keffals, mentioned in the article, is close associates with and supported by Deviant Ollam and his wife Tarah, who was a senior director at Splunk and Symantec and is a fellow at Council on Foreign Relations.
As someone familiar with all three, this is extremely disappointing to hear about.
I have a lot of respect for Deviant, I can only hope he isn't very close to Keffals, or at the least isn't aware of the sheer number of scummy things they have done.
That's a big part of why these reputation-erasing, behind-closed-door censorship networks exist to begin with.
One of infosec's biggest twitter cancel-brigade queens was also the most prolific troll in GNAA and had a long, public history of grooming underage males but everyone looks the other way and celebrates her accomplishments. She literally got a job on Biden's campaign and yet barely anyone talks about it.
Maybe, and while most are definitely quite progressive, I would hope most of them (including Deviant) do what they truly believe is the right thing. He has since deleted all his posts relating him to Keffals, so it's possible he just didn't realize how deep the rabbit hole went and has since chosen to cut off ties.
> She literally got a job on Biden's campaign and yet barely anyone talks about it.
Do you have a source for this?
I'm not talking about Keffals here. What I am talking about was reported in a newspaper but is common knowledge to longtime NYC2600 folks.
https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-164-the-torture...
https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-165-the-torture...
Oh, and the real Torswats allegedly turned out to be a California teenager: https://www.wired.com/story/torswats-swatting-arrest/
Not in the wake of other less visible creators voicing literally the exact same concerns. Not the doxxing campaigns, not the Catboy Ranch stuff and not the DIY hormone website stuff.
I get it. He's a very busy guy...but if you're going to engage in activism you need to be extra guarded about who your associations are with.
Keep that in mind when discussing how kiwifarms relates to the open internet that Null allows a lot of questionable things. A few examples:
He's fine with stolen credit card and social security numbers being posted to the forum: https://archive.fo/rOKai
He's admitted that the rules against harassment are only enforced if it embarrasses him: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/GXIFB
He's openly asked his users to harass people: https://archive.fo/WMrvv
He's admitted that he created secret forums where users could plan harassment campaigns, while he turned a blind eye to it: https://archive.fo/rOKai
The farms exists to shame degeneracy. It started as CWC farms to track the behavior of Chris-chan, of course it's going to be a crazy place. This does not mean they don't deserve access to the backbone of the Internet. You're making moral judgements about who gets to practice legal speech.
The owner is fine with revenge porn being posted, and this has gotten him blocked by some hosts. He's also said he won't ban users who commit illegal acts.
I'm anti-harassment and not in favor of revenge porn. Not really relevant to this discussion, where my position is simply that the law is the law, the government's job is to enforce the law, and companies should be out to make money, not make pretend laws and enforce them via silent agreements.
IIRC, there are laws against sharing revenge porn in 48 states. They don't require you to be the person it was originally shared to: https://cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-distribution-of-i...
>Also, harassment is illegal in some cases, but talking on a public forum generally doesn't qualify. If the parties talked about it publicly and then committed it, that's their problem.
If the example of Null asking his users to harass someone doesn't count, then at what point can something be considered organized harassment?
Another example is the user "Not Based and Redpilled" hacking the game developer of Yandere Simulator. Other users were egging him on and giving suggestions on how to misuse the hacked account. Null was aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law, but didn't punish the hacker. In fact the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%
> If the example of Null asking his users to harass someone doesn't count, then at what point can something be considered organized harassment?
If he asked them to, and those specific users committed illegal harassment in the manner he requested, that would be organized harassment.
From "W. Va. Code §61-8-28a: Nonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images; definitions; and penalties."
There is nothing in the law that says it only bans illicit recordings (like creepshot videos). If you share a video that someone took of themself, you can be be prosecuted under it.
But yes, there is this clause in the law:
>(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on the provider of an interactive computer service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §230(f)(2), an information service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(24), or telecommunications service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(53), for content provided by another person.
I think this is more of a legal issue regarding selective enforcement and Section 230. He has a good lawyer and always wins his cases, maybe don't be so quick to claim he is being wreckless or breaking laws.
He's only won cases against Melinda Scott.
>He's fine with stolen credit card and social security numbers being posted to the forum: https://archive.fo/rOKai
That is from last year. But I accidentally posted the wrong archive link in that example. Here is the correct one: https://archive.is/0fOcS
This is from late last year: https://archive.is/pha8Q#75% He admits he won't ban users who break the law.
In other words, an open internet. Doxxing is not illegal if your intent is not considered harassment or threatening (if it's just for "public shame" or ridicule, that's allowed). If the website or Josh's conduct WAS so illegal, it would have been dealt with already. You're whining at the wrong person, or perhaps, pissing into the wrong wind.
He continues to be sued every couple of months at least, by lots of angry people who were upset at things that were posted, whether by him or others, and he has won against them every single time. I think Melinda alone has sued him like six times, and always lost.
Also your archive links are crimeflared and the opposite of open.
He also allows revenge porn (wich is illegal to distribute in most of the usa), as I have mentioned elsewhere. He's also refused to ban hackers before, and instead chose to punish someone criticizing them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396348
>He continues to be sued every couple of months at least, by lots of angry people who were upset at things that were posted, whether by him or others, and he has won against them every single time. I think Melinda alone has sued him like six times, and always lost.
He's only been sued by 3 people in total. 2 of them have ongoing lawsuits against him. All of them are pro-se litigants and are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Melinda is the only person he's won against so far. He didn't win because of the merits of his case, he won because the other side wasn't capable of arguing theirs.