This is why arguments justifying censorship by saying "just host it yourself then" are wrong. Whenever you take over one level in the stack, the next level down will just censor you instead.
I didn't see that argument a lot. I'm glad their ISP dropped them. "Censorship" is a bit of a silly word to me at this point. Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? When your antivirus removes malware? I mean, spam is speech, malware is code and code is speech. So it is censorship. We just all agree it's a good thing.
This is a good thing.
edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/ malware but also domains/infra hosting those services. If a hosting provider finds out that they are hosting Command and Control infrastructure, or malware, or spam (ie: SES), they will remove that. And no one is up in arms about censorship over it because that would be really stupid.
> Whenever you take over one level in the stack, the next level down will just censor you instead.
That’s (among the reasons) why you need net neutrality, which covers the lowest level of the stack.
EDIT: It is interesting that it is the same people that oppose net neutrality that tend to support government intervention at all other levels of the stack to assure that their preferred content regulation and only that content regulation is enforced.
KF can still have their servers and have the site running on then.. They can also go out and install cables connecting their servers to other people for then to access it if they want.. They are allowed to implement their own parallel stack on the side and have 100% control over it as long as they can afford it..
What is happening is that in order to cut those costs they need to use the existing stack and have other companies grab the content from their servers and deliver to other people screens, but other people do not want KF content in their network in any way.. something entirely in their right..
In the end of the day, if they went all the way up the stack and still cannot find a single other company in the whole world willing to work with them it honestly say more about them then it say about the world..
> This is why arguments justifying censorship by saying "just host it yourself then" are wrong.
That was never the argument.
The argument is that private companies have the right to provide their services in their terms, and if your intended use violates those terms then you also have the right to pick a services that tolerates you and your intended use. Aka gay wedding cakes.
One might apply this argument to HN, where mods can silently ban people so that those who are banned don't realize. I mean, are you going to create your own HN? It doesn't matter if creating HN is easier than creating an ISP if the task is practically unsurmountable.
Isn't the issue here freedom of association? When in conflict with freedom of speech, which is more important, and why?
Perhaps high quality fiber connections with decent upload capacity should be a utility to every home. And ipv6. Then cutting off connections has to go through courts.
Kiwifarms has gone way past free speech and onto active harassment. To fly this one as a free speech issue is disingenuous. To act like censorship is the issue here is pretty ripe.
Zayo, our ISP, has suddenly discontinued service. This is because Blake Willis, a 20 year senior network engineer in the company's Paris HQ, is friends with Liz Fong-Jones - a former Google employee associated with Trans LifeLine charity directors who were removed for inurement, and recently accused of sexual assault. I have appealed this decision but absolutely nothing will happen until Monday.
Yet another chapter in these pathetic cry-bullies' lives. What a waste of your life to be so dedicated to "defending" a forum to meticulously document and mock the existence of people that they find distasteful.
To pretend this is a crusade for free speech is laughable.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ~ H. L. Mencken
> which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it
> with examples
> which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured
Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse? If we want to censor Kiwifarms, we should justify it as heinously evil and an active threat to people's lives or something. Many articles claim they are, but at least according to other posters here end up being a case of circular citations with little in the way of actual examples of Kiwifarms content that'd convince people that maybe it's enough of a pile of garbage to toss out of society.
I know it's definitely not a pleasant place - a friend recently dug out some posts from there on what archives he managed to find, and said it was basically a sneer club site. But a sneer club in a small godforsaken corner of the net is pretty far from actively harassing people to suicide.
Made more complicated by keffals, as far as I know, basically being a similar grade of asshole.
> which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it
Speech does not require justification any more than any other right does. As a principle, speech is not for something. So I in fact have to neither justify nor endorse KF to consider this wrong.
The right supports the right of private businesses to decide who to serve unless they are kicking out right wingers in which case we need government intervention to guarantee a platform.
It’s sort of like how they support federalism except when states do things they don’t like, or small government except for when it comes to their pet issues.
Magical thinking about "the internet eliminates censorship" cannot and must-not override the very real fact that Kiwifarms is awful and no business that is aware of what goes on there wants to associate with them.
It is a KKK-level hate site against LGBT people and particularly trans women, that actively seeks to terrorize them by doxxing them and their family members. Several suicides have been attributed directly to their actions, as well as the Christchurch massacre.
A website that bullies, ridicules and publishes private information of people they do not like, and then pretends they're not culpable when awful things (suicides, swattings) happen as a result because they technically really aren't responsible for them. Not that they don't usually celebrate when it happens.
A trans twitch personality was swatted a while ago and fought back by informing everyone involved with keeping the site alive. They have been dropped by about 99% of the ISPs they've been with (including before that campaign, but now also by Cloudflare).
Well here we are.. It's time to come up with the next argument (excuse) because now building your own site and net is clearly not good enough. ISP networks, protected by governments, are censoring the net.
I first heard of kiwifarms in relation to swatting one of the US congressmembers ( which frankly is likely the reason we are seeing this domino falling into place ). I have no sympathy for swatters, but there are laws in place to handle those.
To me it is sad, because the trend is unmistakable. The 90s internet has been dying for a while, but it will just not be there ( or likely partially move to tor-land ) for my kids.
For all those, who are cheering this on. You are effectively stamping your approval on the concept 'forbidden knowledge' and that 'some people need to be silenced for the greater good'. I am not being hyperbolic.
Can someone explain to me how 4chan which is in the news all the time linked to mass shooters, linked to Trump and 2016 election, link to misinformation, etc. is still up but kiwifarms is dropped by every company?
[+] [-] josephcsible|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] insanitybit|3 years ago|reply
This is a good thing.
edit: Since this keeps coming up, it's not just spam emails/ malware but also domains/infra hosting those services. If a hosting provider finds out that they are hosting Command and Control infrastructure, or malware, or spam (ie: SES), they will remove that. And no one is up in arms about censorship over it because that would be really stupid.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
That’s (among the reasons) why you need net neutrality, which covers the lowest level of the stack.
EDIT: It is interesting that it is the same people that oppose net neutrality that tend to support government intervention at all other levels of the stack to assure that their preferred content regulation and only that content regulation is enforced.
[+] [-] tmottabr|3 years ago|reply
KF can still have their servers and have the site running on then.. They can also go out and install cables connecting their servers to other people for then to access it if they want.. They are allowed to implement their own parallel stack on the side and have 100% control over it as long as they can afford it..
What is happening is that in order to cut those costs they need to use the existing stack and have other companies grab the content from their servers and deliver to other people screens, but other people do not want KF content in their network in any way.. something entirely in their right..
In the end of the day, if they went all the way up the stack and still cannot find a single other company in the whole world willing to work with them it honestly say more about them then it say about the world..
[+] [-] simplotek|3 years ago|reply
That was never the argument.
The argument is that private companies have the right to provide their services in their terms, and if your intended use violates those terms then you also have the right to pick a services that tolerates you and your intended use. Aka gay wedding cakes.
[+] [-] threatofrain|3 years ago|reply
Isn't the issue here freedom of association? When in conflict with freedom of speech, which is more important, and why?
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VHRanger|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sinity|3 years ago|reply
I can't wait to support the other side being censored whenever it'll be possible somehow.
[+] [-] kdmsk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d_e_solomon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orangepurple|3 years ago|reply
Excerpt from the top:
[+] [-] dmamills|3 years ago|reply
To pretend this is a crusade for free speech is laughable.
[+] [-] soundnote|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mimikatz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbruno|3 years ago|reply
which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it
with examples
which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured
[+] [-] soundnote|3 years ago|reply
> with examples
> which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured
Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse? If we want to censor Kiwifarms, we should justify it as heinously evil and an active threat to people's lives or something. Many articles claim they are, but at least according to other posters here end up being a case of circular citations with little in the way of actual examples of Kiwifarms content that'd convince people that maybe it's enough of a pile of garbage to toss out of society.
I know it's definitely not a pleasant place - a friend recently dug out some posts from there on what archives he managed to find, and said it was basically a sneer club site. But a sneer club in a small godforsaken corner of the net is pretty far from actively harassing people to suicide.
Made more complicated by keffals, as far as I know, basically being a similar grade of asshole.
[+] [-] FeepingCreature|3 years ago|reply
Speech does not require justification any more than any other right does. As a principle, speech is not for something. So I in fact have to neither justify nor endorse KF to consider this wrong.
[+] [-] josephcsible|3 years ago|reply
That's not true, though. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... David Goldberger, a Jewish lawyer, defended actual Nazis' rights to free speech. Do you think that he thought Nazism was justified?
[+] [-] api|3 years ago|reply
It’s sort of like how they support federalism except when states do things they don’t like, or small government except for when it comes to their pet issues.
[+] [-] powera|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ultra_nick|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anaisbetts|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byyll|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sascha_sl|3 years ago|reply
A trans twitch personality was swatted a while ago and fought back by informing everyone involved with keeping the site alive. They have been dropped by about 99% of the ISPs they've been with (including before that campaign, but now also by Cloudflare).
[+] [-] CharlesW|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smegsicle|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] HereIGoAgain|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|3 years ago|reply
To me it is sad, because the trend is unmistakable. The 90s internet has been dying for a while, but it will just not be there ( or likely partially move to tor-land ) for my kids.
For all those, who are cheering this on. You are effectively stamping your approval on the concept 'forbidden knowledge' and that 'some people need to be silenced for the greater good'. I am not being hyperbolic.
[+] [-] hnusersarelame|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cannabis_sam|3 years ago|reply
Have they and/or their nihilistic and sadistic salivation over victims of harassment been made illegal…?
Turns out, no…
Are private businesses choosing not to service their reprehensible needs for irrelevant gossip legal…?
Turns out, yes!!!
You either die a free speech defender or you were always an irrelevant misanthropic shitbag who no one wants to associate with…
Your next step is to start a “free speech” oriented ISP, cause, you know, that is still not actually illegal.
You’ve been talking the talk, time to walk the walk…
[+] [-] DarkByte8|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobsmooth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icycombative|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IYasha|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] freitasm|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Ptchd|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] who2|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ueid-max|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anaisbetts|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vmh1928|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]