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's annoying that they're trying to remove your comment via downvoting.
It's amazing to me that some people are so determined to defend KF when it appears that the best defense they have is: "no suicides have been definitively linked to KF." I know their public reason is all about censorship etc, but I'd like to know what their private reason really is.
I'm downvoting the comment due to the same principle that makes me downvote EVERY comment about astroturfing hackernews. Because it's literally against the guidelines of this website, as any real hackernews denizen would know.
They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
It's not that we want to defend KF, it's that we want to have a discussion on the merits of the issue not the reputation of the participants.
KF is ultimately an archive site. It "keeps receipts" in their words. If storing someone's posts is bad, is archive.org bad for performing the same function?
If KF supports harassment campaigns then make that case, but they seem not to. I've seen more harassment and threats on Twitter (literally!) than on KF threads.
If suicide is your metric, are you also against storing the words of people you find objectionable in case they commit suicide when discovered? What if a neo-nazi was recorded being a nazi and killed himself, is that bad?
I personally support storing the speech (because it's censorship not to allow it) and I support legal charges for people who go beyond - let the courts sort out the fine lines.
I doubt this. Hackernews still has a disproportionately large number of principled libertarians like me. I've personally gone on kiwifarms twice, both times triggered by a big hackernews story.
You know what would counter disinformation? Links to analysis of kiwifarms with methodology and citations. E.g. what proportion of threads (from, say, a random sample of 20) contain doxxing on the first page?
Edit: I've now done this. Looks like about 25%. Damn, that's high.
No one is going to link to victim dox in a public HN thread. It would get our accounts banned and also further victimizes these people who were harassed by the site. Thank you for looking at the site for yourself.
Reasonable people disagreeing is not evidence of astroturfing or disinformation. It is possible for people to just disagree with you. There is no organized conspiracy against your viewpoint.
They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
