[shp0ngle]

Yeah for example 8chan and kiwifarms are usually censored. I'm not that mad about it, some censorship is always necessary (you don't want links to child porn), but it's weird that Wikipedia pretends there is no censorship. And it's kind of arbitrary.

Why is stormfront - an openly nazi forum (a really old one at that) - allowed, but kiwifarms - an anti-trans doxxing forum - isn't? It's both bad

[chownie]

Do they pretend there's no censorship? I don't see that. They block spam and I'm certain no one objects to that, so the bare fact that they exclude some information clearly does not constitute the status "censored"

I'd imagine the reason kiwifarms gets different treatment is because the site is a lot worse than the descriptor "anti-trans doxxing forum" might make you believe — it's a website designed specifically to facilitate long term stalking and harassment campaigns. Trans people are their flavour of the month right now but a few years ago it was anyone disabled.

[diogocp]

> Do they pretend there's no censorship?

Yes, they do. Censorship of official links is against explicit Wikipedia policy[1], but it doesn't matter because every policy can be overridden by consensus. In practice this means that a handful of professional activists can (and do) censor it as they see fit, since they can determine for themselves whether such a "consensus" exists.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Offic...

[shp0ngle]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...

https://foundation.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Controver...

If there is some official policy which links are allowed and which are not, I'll shut up.

Why are some links allowed and some not, what is the policy, if there is some.

I see

> Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable.

which seems to me against link censorship.

[pseudo0]

I'm a bit annoyed by it. Censoring "lawful but awful" speech is the thin edge of the wedge. An existing precedent of censoring legal websites reduces my confidence that Wikipedia will be able to stand up to censorship pressure (including from its own editors) in the future.

[Dalewyn]

So called "lawful and fine" speech don't need free speech protections, nor any protections for that matter. It's precisely the so called "lawful but awful" speech that do.

[Pxtl]

I think the argument in this case is that it may cross the line into unlawful behavior. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides, and encouraging suicide is a crime. 8chan has similarly been linked to violent crimes.

There are cases where speech is illegal, even in the USA, which probably has the strictest standards for protecting speech in the world.

[tommica]

> an anti-trans doxxing forum

That is reductive. Kiwifarms is a shit hole for sure, but it has more than just anti-trans doxxing. It's like classifying 4Chan based on /b/

[tired-turtle]

It’s unclear how you meant this, but it reads as

> Sure, the Klan has some bad hombres, but we also run Checkers Tuesdays, maths tutoring for underprivileged youths Friday mornings, and Bible study Sundays.

That is, at some point, the bad overwhelms any good.

[npteljes]

>That is reductive

I agree, Kiwifarms is much more shitty than that. To quote from Wikipedia "It now hosts threads targeting many individuals, including minorities, women, LGBT people, neurodivergent people, people considered by Kiwi Farms users to be mentally ill or sexually deviant, feminists, journalists, Internet celebrities, and video game or comics hobbyists."

[jl6]

Stormfront pushes white supremacism in a generic way, Kiwifarms targets individuals by name (and address and date of birth and…).

[rosmax_1337]

I find it very disturbing that the Wikipedia thread posted in the post above discusses the topic like it's about CP. It's clearly not. It's completely about the political implications of 8ch, especially in the aftermath of the connection between the Christchurch shooting by Brenton Tarrant.

I have browsed 8ch extensively in the past, and continue to browse 4chan. You'll be exposed to disgusting imagery from time to time, no doubt, but the idea that 8ch is censored because of illegal and disgusting imagery is so incredibly disingenuous, this is clearly about political censorship of right wing extremism.

If I had a bit less faith in humanity I would even go as far as to suggest that the Wikipedia thread is crafted to be about CP and not politics for the sake of justifying censorship and rewriting history. 8ch was not controversial because of CP, it was controversial because of extremist politics, and attempting to rewrite history like this is just so typical of Wikipedians these days.

[magnoliakobus]

CSAM is literally what got it delisted from Google search results in summer 2015

[ziddoap]

>8ch was not controversial because of CP

Huh?

>Google appears to have taken an unprecedented step in filtering its search results by banning an entire domain—and adding a warning about __"suspected child abuse content"__ to a search for the domain itself.

Emphasis mine.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/8chan-hosted-con...

It is controversial because of the history of CSAM and the history of extremism.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

This is an extremely dishonest and factually untrue comment.