Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FrecklySunbeam 1384 days ago
Official statement from KF on Aug 26th:

> What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and nobody is allowed to say anything about it.

Wow very neutral site with no agenda here

6 comments

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide?

This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.

Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025

For context, because I didn't know and I'd think others might not either: Apparently Chloe Segal killed herself by going to a public park and lighting herself on fire, telling witnesses in a spoken suicide note her reasons were homelessness and mental health issues.

Josh Moon then playing "Fire" ("I am the God of hellfire and I bring you fire") is in extremely bad taste and outright vile. I can very well see this as gloating.

And yet, it does not prove kiwifarms direct involvement. It's a short extract from a stream he did. Playing devil's advocate for a second, it for example might very well have been a response to media at the time already claiming he/kiwifarms was to blame for the suicide and therefore a rather misguided attempt to poke fun at what he might have considered unfair reporting.

I don't see him gloating about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself in that tweet or video. What I see is him making fun of her death? Reminds me of a video I saw of a photo of Donald Rumsfeld being burnt when he died last year. What am I missing?
He founded and operates the site and he reacted to her death by calling himself a god. In what way is that not gloating?

If the person burning the Rumsfeld photo contributed to his death then I might say they were gloating too.

Where is he calling himself a God?
Did you not watch the video in the tweet?
Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)?

I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.

Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.
It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.
So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts?

Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?
He’s talking about transgender people, not priests
And that just makes all the difference, don't it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.
Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?
There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.
I don't see anything about wanting to drive people to suicide.
The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.
Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.
Do you think that supports the claims made above?
yes, ofcourse