Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by killyourcar 1388 days ago
It's really not that tricky. Few sites are peers of 8chan, kiwi farms, and the daily Stormer. When you become their peer, you have a serious discussion about whether you want them as customers with several people in the company, and you can choose "no".

They can absolutely drop kiwi farms and still be in the clear, ethically. It's not like kiwi farms is even remotely close to some sort of slippery slope. It's the goddamn burning trash pit on a FOB of internet sites.

1 comments

it is a slippery slope. 8Chan was banned for illegal content, Daily Stormer was banned for Direct Calls for racial violence

Kiwi Farms is being called for banning on the nebulous "harassment" charge, based on non-US Legal definition of the term Harassment.

if you can not see how this is a continuation of the slippery slope then I am not sure what you would need to be convienced

Kiwi Farms has killed and swatted people and had resulted in many direct threats of violence to individuals. It's not really a slippery slope at all. All three sites are way, way beyond the pale.

Calling it harassment is like calling the moon a "space rock" - technically true I guess, but missing the magnitude.

As someone who fears and despises Kiwi Farms, I would be dishonest if I didn't recognize the slippery slope certainty that the bar of acceptability would decrease over the next few years.
You realize the fallacy here, right? Terminating commercial agreements with three origins of stochastic terrorism is not some ratchet towards new speak. It's just three cases where Cloudflare decided that sheltering terrorism wasn't in their best interest.
>stochastic terrorism

stochastic terrorism is new speak itself, if redefining inaction to be action, is it redefining silence to be violence, it transitioning from a society focuses on first party liability (i.e am i only responsible for my own actions not the actions of others) to a collectivist mentality of not only am I responsible for my own actions but for the actions of everyone connected to me

It's not new speak. It's a more accurate set of words to describe what we used to call "lone wolves". Stochastic means random, statistically measurable but not predictable.

The term "stochastic terrorism" means terror attacks like school shootings, swattings, and driving trucks into protestors that happen with a certain statistical likelihood, but whose individual events cannot be predicted.

Citation. On the swatting I hope we are not believing MTG now.. that would be doubley ironic

Also there is a big difference between actions of people that also happen to be members of a website and activity taking place on the website. I abhor third party liability

In the case os 8chan and daily stormer they were banned for actions and content on the site. Not for actions of people that may be affiliated with the site as anonymous users

The London police arrested a trans activist and later apologized after she was targeted by kiwi farms.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/doxed-transgender-activist-twitch-...

There's one citation.

Byuu/Near, the author of the incredible bsnes project, was harassed to suicide by kiwi farms.

https://kotaku.com/the-brilliant-snes-emulator-creator-known...

The site posted the video and manifesto of the Christchurch shooting.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/website-kiwi-farms...

So there, three different citations that, themselves link out to other news and reputable primary sources showing the site, including the owner of the site, are involved in stochastic terrorism and, quote, "the exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement".

>>The site posted the video and manifesto of the Christchurch shooting.

Ok, and? I 100% disagree with the active censorship around current events we see every day, from police shootings to terrorism people should be forced to confront the raw reality of the world not a candy coated version put through the filters of main stream media.

>So there, three different citations that,

No those are claims that do not really have a fact based narrative behind them, further even if the claims are taken at face value you are blaming the site for actions of people off the site that may be members, 3d party liability.

Going back to the 8Chan, and Daily Stormer they were banned for illegal content ON THE SITE, not because members of the site did things off that site.

Posting mean or even offensive things on a website should never be a bannable event, and to the extent people are taking actions offsite, or offline to the point of direct harassment, swatting etc those INDIVIDUALS should be criminally prosecuted for their own actions

Posting video of the Christchurch massacre is illegal.

And if you don't think the London police department didn't put out a fact based narrative about three swatting, you are straight up unwilling to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion, and are appealing purely to your emotional attachments to your ideals.