bigshell

I'm on the internet writing from an anonymous HN account. I get to choose what you know about me. Obviously, I want to stay anonymous, so I'm not going to compromise my anonymity by telling you my address. If you find it, go post it to your blog or wherever you wish.

If I link a social media profile to my real name, or something that identifies me, that's my responsibility.

I never said swatting was free speech. I know people who have been SWATted over petty Minecraft related disputes before, and I've had people threaten to call the police on me before and tell them that I'm going to rock up to a crowded event with a carbomb. It's a very scary thing, and I don't have an issue with outlawing false emergency services calls that aim to mobilize unnecessarily militarized police forces.

Luckily, Kiwi Farms has always denied having anything to do with swattings, and there has never been anything to substantiate the claim that people are organising swattings on Kiwi Farms. It is (or was) a public website, so if people are really planning this criminal activity in plain sight it should not really be too difficult to provide evidence for this.

The addresses on Kiwi Farms are already public. They're on the White Pages, public voter registries, WHOIS records, legal filings. Do you think that Kiwi Farms not sharing these addresses would somehow prevent a criminal from getting these addresses?

Edit: I completely misread the comment sorry, I thought your statement "swatting is illegal" was implying that Kiwi Farms had been organising swattings, etc. I'm not going to delete this comment though because I like to think its contents make a good point.

Sure, print it in a book or on your blog, on a sign outside your house, or on a postcard, or with green eggs and ham.

You are upset that this person's Twitter followers use HN and want to participate in a discussion of a topic they clearly care about?

Addresses aren't copyrighted, and workplace health and safety and discrimination or doctor patient confidentiality don't really fall under this because this information like addresses was already public. And if this information becomes public, whether illegally or legally, you're allowed to republish it. Data breaches get shared all the time and that's legal to do because it's considered public information. You are allowed to publish books and news articles with names and addresses in them, or your legal opinions even if you haven't passed the bar exam (also it's worth noting that this is an American idea) and that's not illegal, so why not websites?

You wouldn't be able to, I don't really post anything on HN that would really tie back to my uneventful and unremarkable real life. I don't see what this has to do with the fact that if you Google someone you can find public records of them, and that you should be able to reproduce and share factual information.

My public address is on the internet if you Google my full name, it's public record as I've registered a company to my name, and it's also on WHOIS records for domain names and IP addresses. You can also find it on the White Pages, which I have nothing to do with and I have no idea how it got there and it was there before I ever had anything on public record with my name and address.

I'm not thrilled with it but everyone has the full right to copy and share public records and factual information. I'm not taking the morality of said copying or sharing into question here, I just don't see why you can't reproduce public records of factual information.

Have you visited this website? I have. I found what I assume to be doxes which you have to log in to the website if you'd like to view, but that's factual information, why is the statement of factual information so heinous that this website must be taken off the internet? I saw some pretty mean things, but nobody was saying that you should go say these things on other people's profiles, they just kept these mean things on their website. I didn't see anybody organising swattings, or any other sort of criminal activity.

I haven't seen any news reports which substantiate these claims that Kiwi Farms is a haven of criminality, just allegations in newspapers which are presented as fact. I've seen no way to verify that any of these claims are in fact true, nobody has.

What is harassment? Is it talking about people on a website? People say that stating someone's address, phone number, email, is a form of doxing and therefore harassment. But, these things are just statements of fact. To say that the statement and sharing of factual information obtained legally is not a free speech issue is completely disingenous, 12 years ago when WikiLeaks was leaking information which had been given to them illegally (they didn't recieve the information illegally, but the whistleblower did break the law) they were thrown off of AWS, PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, Bank of America, for the crime of sharing documents. The highest profile free speech related issues on the internet have always been about what you should and shouldn't be able to share publicly.

For some stupid reason I can't bare to see that done in 3 lines.

  whois $(dig +short A $(dig +short MX purelymail.com | head -n 1) | head -n 1)

I personally feel that calling Proton Mail or Tutanota end-to-end encrypted is sort of misleading. Sure, they may have the contents of your mailbox encrypted but in transit they can see your email in plain text and so can the recipient's mail server. If you desire E2EE I highly recommend using GPG or Signal.

I resent the idea that that my comment is somehow propaganda for Apple. I'm extremely opposed to the way they've closed off app distribution on iOS.

I think it's not the best idea to allow apps on your store to use third party payment processors. Users won't have the same protections that the app store gives to them when they use a third party payment processor.

It's not like Epik doesn't have its limits. They pulled 8kun and 9chan off. I find it weird that people act like it's a bulletproof registrar.

I'm not particularly fond of this. It's censorship. Parler wasn't doing anything illegal and Amazon had no legal reason to kick them off. I worry for the future. While I don't think the loss of parler is massive this is getting the censorship ball rolling.

Hi. I'm 16 and got into programming in a similar way but I can't in good conscience say that making Minecraft mods is a good way of learning programming. It's a pain in the ass. There's practically no documentation and you usually find yourself scrolling through deobfuscated game code trying to make sense of the thing and figure how the game works. I don't think it's a good way of learning. Don't get me wrong, getting started programming by making things that you want to make is an excellent way to make it enjoyable rather than a chore but trying to write Minecraft mods and figure out what to do is frustrating and grueling.