[soundnote]

> which highlights a point i like to make: if you wish to defend KF, first you have to justify the concrete speech being carried out on it

> with examples

> which you can't post here because it goes against the rules of this place -- which should be a pretty big hint as to why the fruit site got censured

Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse? If we want to censor Kiwifarms, we should justify it as heinously evil and an active threat to people's lives or something. Many articles claim they are, but at least according to other posters here end up being a case of circular citations with little in the way of actual examples of Kiwifarms content that'd convince people that maybe it's enough of a pile of garbage to toss out of society.

I know it's definitely not a pleasant place - a friend recently dug out some posts from there on what archives he managed to find, and said it was basically a sneer club site. But a sneer club in a small godforsaken corner of the net is pretty far from actively harassing people to suicide.

Made more complicated by keffals, as far as I know, basically being a similar grade of asshole.

[dragonwriter]

> Shouldn't the logic here be the reverse?

No.

> If we want to censor Kiwifarms

That’s not the debate, we aren’t doing that. We are debating the propriety of another party exercising their free speech rights to not relay Kiwifarms speech.

[lbruno]

even with me saying “being censured”, folks pretend there's some censorship concern here

there's isn't

“censorship” is when an advocate of human-rights gets silenced by a powerful entity that wishes to revoke said human rights

“being censured” is me getting moderated for insulting the intelligence of right-wingers here, if that goes against the rules