[phantom_of_cato]

> without recognising that Kiwifarms themselves were a mob

That's seems like a false equivalence to me. They don't have nearly as much as power and influence as the Twitter mobs. Which entire major websites do you think the KF "mob" can get off the internet by political/social pressure?

Also, if there's no avoiding the existence of mobs in the current political climate, it's better to allow all sides to have their own.

> I know who I think is more worthy of protection.

People with backing from almost all social major institutions, corporations, and academia?

[crayboff]

Who do you think has more power? A group of anonymous internet "trolls" attacking and harassing an individual or the individual who can't do anything to stop it?

Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences.

[throwawayacc2]

> Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences.

Whenever I see this line, all I can think is this is the exact same reasoning used by racists and homophobes and religious fanatics in the past. Maybe it’s legal for you to be gay now, but we don’t want to welcome you in our community. Maybe it’s legal for black people to buy houses in our neighbourhoods now that doesn’t mean we have to be welcoming. Maybe we can’t kill you know for being an atheist but we’ll banish you from the community.

The reason modern societies are functionally republics ( I am counting constitutional monarchies here as well ) and not direct democracies is to protect against this very phenomenon of changing societal whims.

If you subscribe to this line of thinking, remember one thing. Societal normal are constantly changing. Just as acceptance of homosexuality waxed and waned across time, just as acceptance of foreigners waxed and waned, so to it will in the future. There will come one day, maybe in our life time, maybe far into the future, when all your values will be turned upside down and it will be people like you who will find themselves persecuted. And when that happens, just tell to yourself “Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences”

[tga_d]

Kiwi farms is not being persecuted for holding an identity, it's being held accountable for actions taken against innocent people. Nobody reasonable thinks, e.g., "persons who engage in abusive behavior" should be a protected class shielded from all repercussions.

[throwawayacc2]

The homosexuals are not being persecuted for holding an identity, they are being held accountable for actions taken against public decency and innocent children. Nobody reasonable thinks, eg, “persons who engage in degenerate behaviour” should be a protected class shielded from all repercussions.

- A homophobe cca 1954

[tga_d]

So, just to be clear here: the position that you're arguing is that there are literally no actions anyone can take that should have social repercussions to them?

[throwawayacc2]

The position I am arguing for is actually something the Cloudflare CEO appears to support as well. At least in writing since he did cave under pressure and instituted censorship.

To quote Matthew Price: “it would have been appropriate as an infrastructure provider for us to wait for legal process”

In a civilised society, we do not have mob rule, we have the rule of law.

The reason we have this stems from the observation that societal norms change throughout time. If we do not have rule of law people will find themselves at the mercy of mobs and petty tyrants. We do not let the mob or “gods anointed” dictate who gets rights and who doesn’t, we offer the same rights to everyone and have a system in place to punish those who step outside the boundaries of the law. This is how a civilised society functions.

If you believe kiwifarms did something wrong, the correct steps are to engage with the system, go through the courts and show they have stepped outside the law. The correct steps are not to censor on the whims of a mob.

Let me ask you a question as well. If a gay teenager or a pregnant teenager gets kicked out of their house for being gay or falling pregnant, would you be as callous as to tell them “you may be protected against government consequences but you’re not protected against social consequences”?

[phantom_of_cato]

> A group of anonymous internet "trolls" attacking and harassing an individual or the individual who can't do anything to stop it?

The comparison isn't to the people who are being harassed randomly. It's between two "mobs", the Twitter one and the KF one.

> Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences.

The legal concept doesn't, but the ideal (and the social norm) does.

[Teever]

But isn't that a catch-22? If the twitter mob wasn't successful in getting KF kicked off, than KF would have been more powerful than the twitter mob?

What alternative are you suggesting, that we just roll over and let these kinds of assholes ruin lives with impunity?

"Power never takes a back step only in the face of more power."

[account42]

We don't need to let either mob kick anyone off from the internet.

[elcamino44]

Okay, but how do you propose the victims of Kiwifarms protect themselves from being kicked off the internet?

And remember we’re not talking about their physical ability to connect to the internet (after all, no one has deprived Kiwifarms of that), we’re talking about their ability to access their audience and use their current identity.

[Teever]

What would you do if Kiwifarms came after you?

[dcow]

Ignore them. If they did something illegal then sue them.

[Teever]

Can you describe the process to sue an anonymous person in another country after they have swatted you?

[dcow]

Does law enforcement seriously consider tips from random internet users in some other country credible when handling domestic affairs as in swatting scenarios? Sounds like law enforcement is behind the times...