[cowtools]

I don't think the goal of KF is to de-platform individuals, but merely to discredit them by publishing demeaning information and rumors about them. So they are categorically different: one side is pro-free-speech, and the other side is pro-censorship.

"Doxxing" doesn't restrict someone else's free speech. It just discourages them from conducting speech under their public identity.

If you ask me, what they ought to do is "counter-dox" the KiwiForum users and give them a taste of their own medicine.

[sealeck]

> "Doxxing" doesn't restrict someone else's free speech. It just discourages them from conducting speech under their public identity.

That is restricting their ability to speak freely - now they have to hide their identity for fear of physical violence!!!

[byyll]

I've seen people make the argument "free speech does not mean free from consequences". This seems to be the same case here. Free speech does not mean free from the consequence of "doxxing"

[sealeck]

This argument is patently ridiculous - according to this logic everyone has "free speech" in that they are able to express themselves even if they are attacked for it with physical violence.

[tsol]

So the free exchange of information is dangerous-- why stop here? There's a lot more protecting we can do

[sealeck]

Of course exchanging information can be dangerous - e.g. when people decide to run coordinated harrassment campaigns - it can also be a wonderful, magnificent thing (e.g. distributing academic knowledge freely) but it's not all good.

[elcamino44]

> "Doxxing" doesn't restrict someone else's free speech. It just discourages them from conducting speech under their public identity.

Isn’t this the exact same thing? Discouraging someone from conducting speech under their public identity is taking away their audience and community. It’s not removing their ability to speak, but it’s hard to see how it’s not restricting their free speech.

And in the exact same way, no one has removed the ability to speak of any KiwiFarms member (or indeed of their community as a whole). It’s simply been made harder for them to conduct their speech under their current public identity.

[BizarroLand]

They published the home address of the family of a trans child and their members physically showed up in person to harass and intimidate that family for years for the crime of existing.

https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/x76vck/...

[phatfish]

> So they are categorically different: one side is pro-free-speech, and the other side is pro-censorship.

The "free speech" angle is an obvious smoke screen for bullying. Their "doxing" is in typical bully style, a whole forum against one person they take a dislike to.

Most normal people don't want to play that game, or even have the resources to do it.

[philosopher1234]

Oh no you can’t post hate on the internet, that’s clearly just as bad as causing someone to commit suicide.

[cowtools]

KF is certainly quite hateful, racist, spiteful, etc. I just don't like when arguments devolve into unplugging each other the internet.

[sealeck]

If you're using the internet to try and threaten and intimidate people then yes, people will try to unplug you from it.

[cowtools]

You could conceivably regard almost any comment as "threatening and intimidating".

On a larger, more serious scale, almost every world power uses the internet to distribute propaganda with the effect of "threatening and intimidating" other nations. There is some degree of "threatening and intimidating" in almost every discussion of politics.

The US Gov might consider Wikileaks to be "threatening and intimidating". Ukraine "threatens and intimidates" Russia and vice versa. Corporations "threaten and intimidate" their workers, while unions "threaten and intimidate" corporations.

I don't think that's a justified basis to atomize the entire internet, but I do think that is a basis for partisan censorship

On a small scale, none of this matters because it is just internet gossip between a few deranged individuals. But this is creating a precedent for internet censorship at large.

[sealeck]

> You could conceivably regard almost any comment as "threatening and intimidating"

Of course, but I think a threat to kill someone with a bomb is unambiguously threatening and intimidating whereas "I think this person's ideology is terrible and disagree with it" is not.

> The US Gov might consider Wikileaks to be "threatening and intimidating". Ukraine "threatens and intimidates" Russia and vice versa. Corporations "threaten and intimidate" their workers, while unions "threaten and intimidate" corporations.

You're kind of lumping in a bunch of separate concerns - a war between Russia and Ukraine is not the same as a forum of neo Nazis and neither are whistleblowing or labour relations disputes. Could you explain why you think they're related (as I can't personally see how they are)?

[_vvaw]

>Of course, but I think a threat to kill someone with a bomb is unambiguously threatening and intimidating

The "bomb threat" was posted by a recently-created and otherwise inactive account, immediately flagged by multiple users, and deleted by a moderator within minutes. The user who posted it was immediately banned. It was also clearly unserious.

https://archive.ph/damIX

[elcamino44]

But if someone comes at you wanting to unplug you from the internet (in every meaningful sense), what possible recourse do you have? These are trolls, they don’t go away just because you ask nicely or try to ignore them.