Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrwaway1234567 | Hacker News Reader

He's somewhat misrepresenting the content of his forums: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...

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

View on HN

> how kiwifarms relates to the open internet that Null allows a lot of questionable things

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.

>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 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.

These are all from 8-10+ years ago and your first example doesn't say what you think it does. Everyone's said questionable things online. That was a catalyst of the deplatforming campaign if you read TFA.

Plenty of that stuff is more recent.

>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.

I read the farms (mostly CWC's thread, some absolutely phenomenal original research), I'm aware of what generally happens there. The only real rule is that porn can't be posted for its own sake. It exists and has a right to do so.

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.

There are things on the website aren't legal speech or are at least legally questionable. Harassment is illegal for one.

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.

> he won't ban users who commit illegal acts

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.

I don't think he'd qualify for the good faith moderation mentioned in section 230.

He's only won cases against Melinda Scott.

What cases has he lost then? Can you cite specific examples?

He also hasn't lost any cases yet. Other than Melinda Scott, all the other lawsuits against him are ongoing.

Revenge porn isn't generally illegal to post. Posting pornography as revenge is the illegal bit, generally speaking. 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.

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.

>Revenge porn isn't generally illegal to post. Posting pornography as revenge is the illegal bit, generally speaking.

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%

Subsection 3 in the Nevada law is pretty broad, likely protecting the farms fully.

> 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.

That page I linked lists all of the laws in the usa about revenge porn. Kiwifarms isn't based in nevada as far as I am aware, I believe it's west virginia or florida.

It is West Virginia. West Virginia's statute protects against illicit recordings in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not penalize someone who runs the platform where it is shared.

>(b) No person may knowingly and intentionally disclose, cause to be disclosed or threaten to disclose, with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce, an image of another which shows the intimate parts of the depicted person or shows the depicted person engaged in sexually explicit conduct which was captured under circumstances where the person depicted had a reasonable expectation that the image would not be publicly disclosed.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com