Kiwifarms isn't some kind of free voice of resistance or gazette, it's just a loose collection of volatile assholes who were banned from 4chan and reddit.
Doesn't change the facts. I hope they come for kiwifarms. I hope it's snuffed out quietly one day and never returns and all its miserable denizens will be forced to know a fraction of the discomfort they inflicted on others.
"Feeling attacked, users of Kiwifarms became even more aggressive. Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site."
Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.
> So you do realize that cyberstalking is a crime in US code: 47 U.S.C. § 223, right?
It seems pretty clear they're doing that, no?
You claimed people "might" be using the forums to commit crimes, now you're saying "it's pretty clear". Again, what actual evidence do you have to back these claims?
> Seems weird that you can't just google this, I mean it took me 30 seconds to do this.
I aware of this blog post by CloudFlare. However, I am not aware of any actual evidence or examples that substantiate the claims made in it. The operator of Kiwi Farms has publicly stated that he received no notice from either CloudFlare or law enforcement about the alleged threats. CloudFlare has also never provided any specifics publicly. In my opinion, the CEO was overruled and forced to remove KF, and that blog post is a transparent attempt to save face after beating his chest about never backing down.
) However, the rhetoric on the Kiwifarms site and specific, targeted threats have escalated over the last 48 hours to the point that we believe there is an unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life unlike we have previously seen from Kiwifarms or any other customer before.
> Fortunately US Code doesn't require violence for cyberbullying to be a crime.
This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.
Matthew Prince received a massive backlash for this decision and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had. As mentioned, I believe it was merely a convenient excuse to justify backtracking on his definitive promise less than 48 hours later.
If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?
> and he hasn't once been able to elaborate on what evidence they had.
Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind?
My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.
Of course it's possible, though without evidence it's baseless speculation. I'm pretty sure the Kiwi Farms is protected by section 230, so unless the owner was personally involved in these threats to life (which I doubt) what reason would there be to keep them in the dark?
Only Matthew Prince can shed light on the truth, but if he hasn't by now I doubt he ever will.
The owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with. Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.
> The owner shed his Section 230 protections when he made posts directly involved in harassment of his victims that he has a personal beef with.
That's an interesting legal theory.
> Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.
An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.
If I recall correctly those posts were all from new accounts, and were largely removed by moderators.
I mean, anyone can create a new account on HN and post "I am literally going to kill Joe Biden tonight", and perhaps they actually plan to do that too, and maybe they'll even pull it off, but that doesn't mean HN orchestrated a conspiracy to kill Joe Biden.
The general policy is "look, but don't touch", and while I don't really trust the userbase in general to adhere to that, the people running the site (mostly this Null guy, as near as I can tell) seem fairly dedicated to this.
Personally I think the internet wold be better without the site, but I also think there's a sore lack of nuance here, and people accept certainly dubious claims a little bit too readily (turns out not everything on the internet is the whole story, or even true in the first place).
Notably, the infamous picture taken outside of Keffals' alleged residence in Ireland was posted *on 4chan* by someone claiming to be a member of Kiwi Farms.
If they were actually a member of Kiwi Farms, why didn't they post it on the forums? The obvious answer, to me at least, is that they weren't, and they couldn't because KF had closed new user sign ups prior to that.
Now imagine if HN admins created a section explicitly purposed for posting Joe Biden's personal family information and stalking his family. That's what Kiwifarms actually is towards its victims.
Go look at the front page of the site. There is a section named "lolcow cults" and 4 major forum sections created by the admins naming specific victims by name. I don't think I can even link to it without getting my HN account banned.
Do you really want the answer, or was that a question hoping to shame me?
So if the biker bars are distributing child porn, or illegal drugs or guns, or using it as a place for conspiracy terrorism, then yeah, I say yes those corporations serving said bar should have a say. Particularly if the biker bar, e.g., violated the company's Christian morals.
More importantly, this is supported by case law, today.
The decisions of who a business chooses as it's customer is actively being challenged by conservatives in this country. See the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. In this case the decision was overturned on religious grounds.
I would bet a significant amount that if an electric company didn't want to serve a biker bar on religious grounds (particularly if there was active criminal activity), they probably would get away with it.
The last time I checked the constitution there wasn't a right to internet or electric or phone service. There was a right for religious beliefs, though.
> So if the biker bars are distributing child porn, or illegal drugs or guns, or using it as a place for conspiracy terrorism, then yeah, I say yes those corporations serving said bar should have a say.
For the sake of argument let’s change it from biker bar to a LGBT bar. Say some customers may be doing illegal drugs, and the CEO of the electric company (Known for his stance against illegal drugs) got wind of it. Like the biker bar, they were never afforded due process, and were never ordered to shut down in a court of law. Instead, the CEO orders his company to shut off the power; the reason being, he knows it must be true because a local reporter told him so. Not only that, a friend of his went to the bar and saw people doing drugs.
The bar gets no jury, no trial. A structure without electricity is considered uninhabitable, and the bar is forced to close down. Do you still think this is legal?
The Masterpiece ruling was a 7-2 decision. We can get into if/buts etc.... but the way I see it, common carrier status is a congressional law, not a constitutional one.
> More importantly, this is supported by case law, today.
The Supreme Court ruling was not on using religion as an excuse not to serve. Supreme Court ruling was an about the commission violating a rule on religious neutrality. It set no precedent for the substance of the original suit.
> I would bet a significant amount that if an electric company didn't want to serve a biker bar on religious grounds (particularly if there was active criminal activity), they probably would get away with it.
You would be wrong. Electricity is not “creating expression”, which is what the lower courts were ruling on.
