What has KF done that puts it on the level of the sites (incorrectly) dropped in the past?
To be clear here, i'm coming from a POV that doesn't think a network infrastructure org has any business picking and choosing. That's how you break and ruin the net.
I was all set to write a comment about how I'm not OK with private companies deciding who can exist on the internet - but then I remembered that all CloudFlare does is caching and DDOS protection.
Without CloudFlare the website would still be accessible on the Internet. And to me that makes a big difference.
The implication is that Keffals and friends will DDoS the site out of existence, as they have apparently tried to do numerous times. This is of course criminal but goes unmentioned.
Is it? I'm one of those free speech people, I think, but I do recognize that some 'speech' is harassment when combined with action. Not because of the content, but because you're intending to disrupt somebody, such as following them around all day and yelling. DDoS seems like that. Doesn't it? I mean you're not even saying anything. It's like saying throwing rocks at a window is speech. "What? I'm just trying to say I don't like you. Speech!"
You are aware that DDOSAs are illegal, and that KF doesn't do anything legally even questionable right?
CF is an infrastructure service company and thus are the very LAST people who should be picking and choosing.. not if we want the net to keep working freely.
He did journalism at one time. He’s a been a violent partisan activist for a while now. I see he’s still making the podcast.
If you agree with Evans that burning police stations, courthouses, and condos with people inside is cool, as he and many others attempted in Portland for weeks in 2020, just say so. That’s actual violence, not whatever Internet trolls are doing on a message board.
Sounds on brand for most of the Mao flavored anarkiddies I've had the displeasure of running into on reddit. Struggle sessioning other leftists with whom you share 99.9% of doctrine is as much a socialist past time as it is a protestant one.
Kiwi Farms is a horrible abomination. One of the worst cesspits on the internet. They were sharing videos of the Christchurch massacre right after it happened. As a New Zealander it felt doubly disrespectful that they'd share that and use the name Kiwi.
All of that said I respect Cloudflare staying neutral on this. Free speech is only free if we defend the speech we hate the most. Free speech has a bad name today but if we de-platform everything that is disagreeable we'll squash our own freedoms along with it.
One issue I have is that much of what happens there breaks laws. Cloudflare shouldn't have to step in to deal with that. Law enforcement should have the reach to bring criminals to justice offline and online.
Swatting is incredibly dangerous. I fear many see it as a prank but when you get cops with guns charging into what they think is a dangerous situation then people get hurt.
The problem is that, much like the alleged body count, they do nothing of the sort. See my post above.
They don't harass or even troll. It's literally one of the core rules of the site. Look (and laugh) but don't touch! If you ever try to organize something on-site, you'll get down-voted, your post deleted and potentially even banned. Attempting to swat isn't just not allowed on the site, but most members call out actual attempts as stupid, dangerous and evil!
Posting publicly available info and then pointing and laughing, is not stalking or harassment.
I'm going on the article above. It alleges that crimes have been committed. If there is no crime that is great and they might have a reasonable claim to libel.
I guess my point is that any action against them should be for specific crimes committed by law enforcement. Not de-platforming by an angry mob. The nice thing about falling back on the justice system is you need to prove your claims. So if there is no crime here then there is no action required against Kiwi Farms. But if there is then there is a valid path to justice that doesn't involve the mob getting their way without any due process.
I get what you're saying now. Truly criminal actions should always be investigated and nobody should get favorites. It's funny how the people and media pushing these narratives here fail to mention the full logic of their arguments.. CF provides DDOS protection, they want KF to lose that protection so the DDOS attacks that are going on even now, take the site offline. That is literally the entire goal of this CF demand... To make the site susceptible to unquestionably illegal DDOS attacks which they know authorities don't and wouldn't lift a finger to stop/punish.
You also have to remember where those claims are coming from.. Vice isn't exactly the most unbias or trustworthy source. Just barely above clickbait in quality and more overtly political on these types of issues.
This is precisely why these folks are going after Cloudflare. On some level they understand there's no crime, but it feels like there is. We're all having our minds warped by the culture war until we think that if something feels bad, that it's probably illegal, and if it isn't, that maybe it should be.
BTW there is a whole page on the site explaining their position, what to do if a crime is committed, what to do if you think you've been defamed, that they comply with US law, subpoenas, court orders, etc:
(Warning! Leads to Kiwi Farms! Beware of being radicalized!)
> Harassment campaigns by Kiwi Farms users are known to have contributed to the suicides of three individuals.[9] The Kiwi Farms community considers it a goal to drive its targets to suicide, and has celebrated such deaths with a counter on the website.[11]: 55, 61 They have used social media reporting systems to mass-report posts by harassment targets in which they've expressed suicidal thoughts or intentions, with the goal of reducing the possibility their targets receive help.[11]
It's kind of funny that you talk about an "alleged body count" when the site literally put up an actual counter of the people whose suicide they encouraged.
Do you have source for that? The book in the Wikipedia article cites [0], [1] and [2] but i couldn't find anything related to suicide counter in them. Also I'm not exactly sure why Kiwi Farms gets _all_ the blame here. It's Facebook deleting the posts of people that need help because i guess it's against their guidelines.
Wait, you mean the person who got evicted from their house by the roommates (thrown out of the local trans community) and then killed themselves later that day? Also didn't they literally frame it as a protest of the current mental health system?
It seems very much like you've been reading fud from opportunistic people.. and from the sound of it some of the same people who threw Chloe under the bus the day it happened.
You must be confusing her with a different Chloe Sagal. I'm referring to the one who was stalked and harassed by Kiwi Farms users and when tried reaching out for help was consistently reported and locked down. The one who was the target of online bullying and the one who was mentioned in this Kiwi Farms quote “I do hope they blame us for literally murdering another t***n. Dibs on credit.”
You probably aren't meaning to, but you're spreading outright lies that always originate with people who are mad at the Kiwis. This is just plain made up. Maybe you're thinking of 4chan circa 2004. Maybe you think all internet trolls are one big community. I don't know.
The problem is that just about nobody outside of KF has any reason at all to know anything about them, besides what they hear second hand from people who are upset with them.
Saying one word on the forum even hinting at the encouragement of what they term "GayOps" - or interacting directly with / harassing the subjects, is perhaps the only bannable offense there is. And that's not a term of endearment, and this is not a wink, wink, nudge thing. I know your mind wants to reject this, but it is the case. There's no secret chatroom. If there is it's a completely separate community because they wouldn't be able to talk to the actual community about any of it. The forum OGs will attempt to mock you into submission before things get to that point. The vast majority of the users have no interest in messing with them and it is against the culture. A few people will try to talk to the subjects on Twitter and in 7 years I've never once seen it go past that. Not once.
99% of their activity is screencapping public tweets, making mean-spirited quips about them, and... and nothing. That's it. That's what they do. People aren't mad about what KF does. They think they are, because people aren't capable of thinking clearly about this, particularly when they're the targets. People are really mad about what they say. They just can't believe it's legal to say the horrible things they say. But it is. And they're mad about where and how the Kiwis direct attention. And the more postmodern targets have lately taken to yapping about what they've termed "stochastic terrorism". That's the idea that the speech on the forum raises the statistical likelihood that somebody might decide to commit a crime OR that a target might commit suicide. Stochastic terrorism. This is how they're able to say with a straight face that the Kiwis are terrorists, committing terrorism, in addition to being nazis, fascists, alt-right, inciting violence and all the standard by the book things that you people have taken to calling every single person who doesn't exercise their right to talk about shit in the way you think they should.
Almost everything I've ever read about Kiwi Farms was blatant and obvious lies with an obvious agenda.
My only actual experience with them is their refusal to remove video of my country men getting violently murdered. While I don't think they should have been forced to do that it was the right thing to do. The families should have been given that respect.
Anything outside of that I'll admit I'm probably wrong or at best uninformed. I have no doubt that in this day and age they're being attacked in bad faith by the media.
I do understand your feelings on that.. The whole thing seems to have blew up when someone from their government requested a list of everyone who downloaded or viewed the video or manifesto. This was right around the time that they were very publicly arresting people for even looking at either. The owner wasn't happy about that and told them off.. Then the media (including sites like vice) reported it as "KF refuses to release information on the CC shooting" something the site is still blamed for to this day in some places.
I can certainly understand how that would be upsetting. I'm sure you understand that KF isn't about respecting.... anybody. At all. They are as irreverent as anything I've ever seen.
But yes, they're attacked almost exclusively in bad faith by everybody. Everybody. As soon as somebody says "There's a website dedicated to making trans people commit suicide!" in this our Age of Outrage, there is a part of most people that wants to believe it immediately.
Which really makes me wonder why the media doesn't stick to reporting on what they actually say and do. Why isn't that bad enough? It would still make everyone mad.
The alternative is actively engaging with them, but the incentive structures are all messed up. If someone has more energy, time, and rhetorical maladaptions, they can "run out the clock" on internet debate. This becomes an effective strategy when we acknowledge that most internet "debates" aren't actually trying to change the minds of those engaging in them. They are performative acts intended to convince the readers which easily outnumber the participants by orders of magnitude. In essence, master debaters craft their message to appeal to viewers whilst simultaneous serving as a foil to the other participants.
I often find people mistake the Socratic method with sealioning. Sometimes to argue a topic you have to ask a series of questions first to find out from what axioms the person is reasoning. It's highly unproductive when people start pulling out the term sealioning instead of actually exploring the ideas they are advocating. Because of that I'm not a fan of the term.
The Sorcratic method is great for novice-expert dialogue. It's demeaning when it's over applied in discussion amongst peers.
If someone wants to know another's axioms, it's easy to simply preface questions with that context. Absent that, the audience will infer what the writers intentions are. Usually when the audience guesses wrong we don't blame the audience, we instead respond back with polite critique that the author's words were unclear.
Maybe I've been on the internet too much, but there's been times when it's clear the Sorcratic method was being used as a rhetorical device with great effect rather than a knowledge transference device. We can both agree that's maladaptive behavior.
> People on Twitter, as well as Sorrenti, claimed that the official Cloudflare account hid replies on its tweets related to dropping Kiwi Farms, and then deleted tweets that were ratioed by people talking about the campaign. Cloudflare’s Twitter account normally posted at least daily before this week, but hasn’t tweeted in four days, as of writing.
What is the meaning of “ratioed” in this sentence?
From Know Your Meme:
The Ratio or Ratioed refers to an unofficial Twitter law which states that if the amount of replies to a tweet greatly outnumbers the number of retweets and likes, then the tweet is bad. Additionally, "to ratio" a tweet means to make a quote retweet or reply that manages to get more likes and retweets than the quoted post.
It's easy to call for freedom of speech for harassers and abusers when you're posting from an anonymous account. You think it's okay for this site to exist when a key feature is doxxing people's information. But you're too much of a coward to post your name and address to HN? Privacy for you, but not for the KF victims? This is hypocrisy.
Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and address you fucking coward.
These guys? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms If their availability suffers a little, it doesn't seem like a grave loss for the internet. It's not like there's a world-wide shortage of websites.
That isn't how free speech or net neutrality works. Intimidating websites you don't like off the Internet, which is what Keffals et al are doing by trying to remove this site's DDoS protection so they can illegally force them offline, is corrosive to all types of online speech period. If KiwiFarms breaks the law, then by all means take down the website.
Secondarily, I don't see anyone else-- journalists, politicians, NGOs, anyone-- doing this kind of deep dive into the sort of online harm Keffals represents. Grooming young children into bathtub-gin sex changes behind the backs of parents and doctors is monstrous. If the only people documenting this are Internet trolls on KiwiFarms, all the more reason to defend their civil rights until the rest of society comes to its senses.
It’s almost like a mob creating an environment so violent that the police can no longer maintain control so they withdraw, leaving the citizens and the businesses to burn…
Telling confused children how to buy hormones with Bitcoin, inject themselves without medical supervision, and hide it all from parents isn't praiseworthy.
Hopefully one day the kids will be able to get the care they need without having to bypass the medical system or hide things from their family. Until then, they get to be biopunk.
This "care" is unnecessary and harmful for most children. Puberty is the cure for most children with body dysphoria; up to 90% of kids who identify as transgender desist from this identity post-puberty. However, effects from "gender-affirming care" like a deepened voice, mastectomy, orchiectomy, hysterectomy, and sterilization are irreversible. The long-term effects of puberty blockers especially are unknown, particularly as they affect adolescent brain development. That's without mentioning the usual risks of blood clots, osteoporosis, mood disorders, and cardiovascular events that can result from hormone treatment even in clinical settings.
In the UK, the Tavistock clinic for youth gender medicine was recently forced to shut over concerns for patient safety, and findings that staff were rushing children into procedures they later regretted:
This issue is highly ideological and politicized on both sides. Suggesting medical transition for any minor is not currently supported by the evidence. National health systems like Sweden's have banned it outside clinical trials. Instructing minors to attempt it themselves without medical or psychological evaluation or monitoring is reckless in the extreme. Doing it for sexual gratification, as some are in Keffals' case, is monstrous.
>This issue is highly ideological and politicized on both sides. Suggesting medical transition for any minor is not currently supported by the evidence.
Neither is conversion therapy, but SEGM happily associates itself with advocates for it , along with evangelical organizations. Indeed, such advocates are found among 'expert witnesses' in the Tavistock case. Maybe Vice should report on these associations. Maybe people who are just deeply concerned about child welfare should pay attention to them, too.
If you care about kids, don’t ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests youth transition is overwhelmingly harmful. Don’t ignore stories like Chloe’s:
I don't think there is any 'danger of conflation', particularly, again, given that SEGM is also closely linked to evangelical organizations, who were trying this sort of thing 20 years ago with intelligent design.
>If you care about kids, don’t ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests youth transition is overwhelmingly harmful. Don’t ignore stories like Chloe’s
I think that the fact that transphobes can weaponize a few more anecdotes about detransitioning this year than last year is not particularly meaningful. In the aggregate, these stories account for a tiny minority:
The largest cohort comprises 8% of the sample, 62% of whom did so because they were pressured by their family, not because they had regrets about choosing to transition.
>The harm will be obvious to all once the lawsuits get rolling
Has the harm of MMR vaccination become obvious because lawsuits have managed to 'get rolling' and even succeeded in that context?
Bell wasn't a child when she had hormones or surgery. Bell was told by her psychiatrist at Tavi not to go ahead with transition. She ignored that advice and went ahead anyway. You'll notice that she hasn't brought a personal injury case. She'd lose it if she did. She had capacity to make a decision. She made an unwise decision, and now she's living with the consequences of her own poor choices. Is your position seriously that capacitous adults should be banned from making decisions about their healthcare?
> The NHS-commissioned Cass Report details the many risks and gaps of evidence underlying youth transition:
The Cass review has led to the closure of the single clinic providing child trans healthcare in England, but has led to the opening of many more child trans healthcare clinics across England. The Cass review is clear that the problems were mostly lack of access to timely care. I don't understand why you think this is a victory for the anti-trans position, it simply isn't. Many more children are now going to be able to access timely care, and many more children will be able to access puberty blockers.
Only behind the backs of their parents. They'd do what an actual doctor suggests if their parents weren't forcing a totalitarian gender ideology on their kids.
>She claimed that users on Kiwi Farms, a notorious message board with a history of targeting and doxing vulnerable people, organized the raid and continued to harass her and numerous others.
The site is legal and the majority of users follow the law.
>8chan, a popular website for terrorist manifestos.
It wasn't that popular of a site and it's purpose wasn't for terrorist manifestos. It's purpose was to be an image board where users could create their own boards. The global moderators took down content that was illegal to host in the US. The most popular topics of discussion were anime, politics, technology, and video games.
Since the media was biased against the site, once an excuse came up to get the site taken down they pounced. They painted a misleading picture of what the site was about in hopes they could take down the site. They won and destroyed many innocent communities that called that site their home.
To be honest, having read through this entire thread, you are the only user that sticks out as having some below-the-surface agenda and hiding behind a new account.
People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
An alleged body count.. by mostly the very same people who try to get them shut down and continually DDOS them. Even the claims themselves are spurious at best. Blamed for deaths of people who weren't even talked about on the site for months and months, over publicly available information. (and in many cases their own posting history on SM)
Isn't that the guy who faked his own death or something? Pretty sure he was a member of KF and participated in his own thread, a thread that wasn't active for like a half a year before any of this. Did he post any proof that it was KF or examples? Or was it simply assumed like so many other cases?
As said before.. Trolling or harassing isn't allowed. ("look don't touch")
Nothing official? It's a literal confirmation of their death by their employer. You're literally all over this thread spreading easily verifiable misinformation, it's frankly just sad. If you had any integrity you'd update your comments to reflect that you were wrong, but of course you won't because you are deliberately lying about the site.
A former employer is clearly the most official and important source for these sorts of things. Man do I look stupid.
It's funny how nobody can actually come up with a media report or and actual death registered by japanese officials.. (Yes the japanese and US government track this kind of stuff and even release official reports.. but guess what's missing from the entire quarter in which near is said to have died)
Those are pretty poor examples of anything. nymag doesn't even get basic facts correctly. If posting bias uninformed hit pieces is all it took to win debates then the world would be a pretty sad place.
The nymag article has many links to archive.org historical versions of the site. People can judge for themselves by looking at the original facts instead of meta-commentary which attempts to summarize over facts.
If you look at the revision history of this (and related) pages, you'll see plenty of edits by people publicly campaigning for the takedown of that site on Twitter. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia to be unbiased given these conflicts of interest.
This comment is useless as it is, you can't dispute the veracity of the facts presented in the article without providing any kind of evidence yourself. Please, refrain from posting low-value comments like this one that add nothing to the conversation.
Let's be clear: Kiwi Farms is a ball of hate just like the Daily Stormer is. But the reason CF hasn't dropped them is none of the site operators will make the claim Cloudflare are open supporters of Kiwi Farms, while DS's editor decided to be cocky and make these claims. Kiwi Farms operators can always distance itself from members calling for violence and ban the accounts when it gets out of hand, just as Reddit has done in the past.
In short: Just claim Cloudflare are big Kiwi Farms supporters as many places you go. Eventually Matthew's ego will get bruised enough and the site will get taken down in another arbitrary manner.
So one site publishes articles from a political (white nationalist) standpoint, the other hosts published dossiers on individuals that have ideologies site users either hate or behavior they think is funny. Point is, they both post shit about people and things they hate or want to ridicule. Do you dispute this?
> Kiwi Farms is a ball of hate just like the Daily Stormer is.
That's some prime wordsmithing. Read it one way and it's debatably true or at least truthy. Read it another way and it's false. Confuse the two and the reader is now misinformed. Impressive rhetorical mischief.
> "hate or want to ridicule"
Is that one verb or two? Because the ridicule part is objectively true. But the hate part requires a) mind reading, and b) assuming that the feelings of a community of hundreds of people are all the same.
But you can't just say 'ridicule'. You need the 'hate' part to make your point. Hence: "hate or ridicule". As if it's all the same either way. Hate, ridicule, what's the difference? Humor, violence, what does it matter? Humor is hate, funny is violence.
> Do you have anything to back that up? KF isn't even a political site.
I won't link to them, but here are some random threads easily obtained by Googling:
- "Is being a Nazi really that bad?" (Full of comments saying that, no, it isn't that bad, and in fact LGTB people are worse).
- "White Supremacy Megathread" (Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech).
- "Why do Kiwi Farms users so racist against blacks?" (Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site).
Just to be clear: I don't expect to convince you, because you're clearly lying constantly about the nature of the site in all your comments to defend it. I just want to provide some actual, real context for your lies.
>Full of comments saying that, no, it isn't that bad, and in fact LGTB people are worse
One person giving off a list of things they think are worse who included "LGBTQ advocates" does not mean that the comment section is full of it. The thread was about the people and not the ideology.
>Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech
It was a 2 page shitpost thread full of everyone shitposting.
>Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site
This isn't true either and it was another shitpost.
>I don't expect to convince you
The approach of an outsider cherry picking threads from someone's community and then generalizing the whole community based those threads isn't effective because they know the picture you are painting of their community doesn't match what it's like to them.
> But the reason CF hasn't dropped them is none of the site operators will make the claim Cloudflare are open supporters of Kiwi Farms, while DS's editor decided to be cocky and make these claims.
Er, I don't think that's it:
> Now I can make an argument to say that we kicked them off because they they had alleged that we were supporters of theirs, or that they had harassed people who are submitting abuse complaints or lots of those things, but I think that’s a little bit hand-waving. If they had been a blog about shoes online, we would have cut them a lot more slack than we did. And if that’s the case, then that means that our feeling toward their content influenced our decision: which is the opposite of being neutral. I think that they are the exception that that shows why it’s so important to have to have rules.
If the CEO of Cloudflare thinks it's "little bit hand-waving" to say that claims of support were the reason they were dropped, I'm willing to say that's probably not it.
Unless they are breaking a law, an actual law not a moral one, then I think it’s abhorrent for Cloudflare to get in to the mob.
Is there no service provider that is a free-speech absolutist? Maybe someone needs to start that service. Unless you’re breaking an actual law, not a moral law, then you should be able to build your service and have a website.
120 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 58.8 ms ] threadTo be clear here, i'm coming from a POV that doesn't think a network infrastructure org has any business picking and choosing. That's how you break and ruin the net.
Without CloudFlare the website would still be accessible on the Internet. And to me that makes a big difference.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46536.pdf
CF is an infrastructure service company and thus are the very LAST people who should be picking and choosing.. not if we want the net to keep working freely.
[0]: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-end...
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
If you agree with Evans that burning police stations, courthouses, and condos with people inside is cool, as he and many others attempted in Portland for weeks in 2020, just say so. That’s actual violence, not whatever Internet trolls are doing on a message board.
This doesn't sound like an accurate description of a guy who openly critizes Stalin and whines all day about "tankies".
All of that said I respect Cloudflare staying neutral on this. Free speech is only free if we defend the speech we hate the most. Free speech has a bad name today but if we de-platform everything that is disagreeable we'll squash our own freedoms along with it.
One issue I have is that much of what happens there breaks laws. Cloudflare shouldn't have to step in to deal with that. Law enforcement should have the reach to bring criminals to justice offline and online.
Swatting is incredibly dangerous. I fear many see it as a prank but when you get cops with guns charging into what they think is a dangerous situation then people get hurt.
Then you have harassment laws https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/harassment.... There are specific Cyberstalking laws.
They don't harass or even troll. It's literally one of the core rules of the site. Look (and laugh) but don't touch! If you ever try to organize something on-site, you'll get down-voted, your post deleted and potentially even banned. Attempting to swat isn't just not allowed on the site, but most members call out actual attempts as stupid, dangerous and evil!
Posting publicly available info and then pointing and laughing, is not stalking or harassment.
I guess my point is that any action against them should be for specific crimes committed by law enforcement. Not de-platforming by an angry mob. The nice thing about falling back on the justice system is you need to prove your claims. So if there is no crime here then there is no action required against Kiwi Farms. But if there is then there is a valid path to justice that doesn't involve the mob getting their way without any due process.
You also have to remember where those claims are coming from.. Vice isn't exactly the most unbias or trustworthy source. Just barely above clickbait in quality and more overtly political on these types of issues.
BTW there is a whole page on the site explaining their position, what to do if a crime is committed, what to do if you think you've been defamed, that they comply with US law, subpoenas, court orders, etc:
(Warning! Leads to Kiwi Farms! Beware of being radicalized!)
https://kiwifarms.net/help/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms#Harassment
It's kind of funny that you talk about an "alleged body count" when the site literally put up an actual counter of the people whose suicide they encouraged.
[0]: https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/chloe-sagal-death-12028...
[1]: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=308671
[2]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-...
It seems very much like you've been reading fud from opportunistic people.. and from the sound of it some of the same people who threw Chloe under the bus the day it happened.
The problem is that just about nobody outside of KF has any reason at all to know anything about them, besides what they hear second hand from people who are upset with them.
Saying one word on the forum even hinting at the encouragement of what they term "GayOps" - or interacting directly with / harassing the subjects, is perhaps the only bannable offense there is. And that's not a term of endearment, and this is not a wink, wink, nudge thing. I know your mind wants to reject this, but it is the case. There's no secret chatroom. If there is it's a completely separate community because they wouldn't be able to talk to the actual community about any of it. The forum OGs will attempt to mock you into submission before things get to that point. The vast majority of the users have no interest in messing with them and it is against the culture. A few people will try to talk to the subjects on Twitter and in 7 years I've never once seen it go past that. Not once.
99% of their activity is screencapping public tweets, making mean-spirited quips about them, and... and nothing. That's it. That's what they do. People aren't mad about what KF does. They think they are, because people aren't capable of thinking clearly about this, particularly when they're the targets. People are really mad about what they say. They just can't believe it's legal to say the horrible things they say. But it is. And they're mad about where and how the Kiwis direct attention. And the more postmodern targets have lately taken to yapping about what they've termed "stochastic terrorism". That's the idea that the speech on the forum raises the statistical likelihood that somebody might decide to commit a crime OR that a target might commit suicide. Stochastic terrorism. This is how they're able to say with a straight face that the Kiwis are terrorists, committing terrorism, in addition to being nazis, fascists, alt-right, inciting violence and all the standard by the book things that you people have taken to calling every single person who doesn't exercise their right to talk about shit in the way you think they should.
Almost everything I've ever read about Kiwi Farms was blatant and obvious lies with an obvious agenda.
Anything outside of that I'll admit I'm probably wrong or at best uninformed. I have no doubt that in this day and age they're being attacked in bad faith by the media.
But yes, they're attacked almost exclusively in bad faith by everybody. Everybody. As soon as somebody says "There's a website dedicated to making trans people commit suicide!" in this our Age of Outrage, there is a part of most people that wants to believe it immediately.
Which really makes me wonder why the media doesn't stick to reporting on what they actually say and do. Why isn't that bad enough? It would still make everyone mad.
If someone wants to know another's axioms, it's easy to simply preface questions with that context. Absent that, the audience will infer what the writers intentions are. Usually when the audience guesses wrong we don't blame the audience, we instead respond back with polite critique that the author's words were unclear.
Maybe I've been on the internet too much, but there's been times when it's clear the Sorcratic method was being used as a rhetorical device with great effect rather than a knowledge transference device. We can both agree that's maladaptive behavior.
This might actually be a good technique. It is very difficult to convey good faith intentions on todays internet.
> People on Twitter, as well as Sorrenti, claimed that the official Cloudflare account hid replies on its tweets related to dropping Kiwi Farms, and then deleted tweets that were ratioed by people talking about the campaign. Cloudflare’s Twitter account normally posted at least daily before this week, but hasn’t tweeted in four days, as of writing.
What is the meaning of “ratioed” in this sentence?
Keffals posts a reply tweet telling CF to drop KiwiFarms and that reply gets very many more likes than CloudFlare's original tweet.
The ratio of likes is what's referred to as "ratioed".
Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and address you fucking coward.
Secondarily, I don't see anyone else-- journalists, politicians, NGOs, anyone-- doing this kind of deep dive into the sort of online harm Keffals represents. Grooming young children into bathtub-gin sex changes behind the backs of parents and doctors is monstrous. If the only people documenting this are Internet trolls on KiwiFarms, all the more reason to defend their civil rights until the rest of society comes to its senses.
I'm not sure that self medication is a safe concept to be promoting.
In the UK, the Tavistock clinic for youth gender medicine was recently forced to shut over concerns for patient safety, and findings that staff were rushing children into procedures they later regretted:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/gender-ident...
The NHS-commissioned Cass Report details the many risks and gaps of evidence underlying youth transition:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...
Former patients are now coming forward to tell how they were harmed:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story
In the US, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is attempting to spread this knowledge among practitioners:
https://segm.org/
This issue is highly ideological and politicized on both sides. Suggesting medical transition for any minor is not currently supported by the evidence. National health systems like Sweden's have banned it outside clinical trials. Instructing minors to attempt it themselves without medical or psychological evaluation or monitoring is reckless in the extreme. Doing it for sexual gratification, as some are in Keffals' case, is monstrous.
The Guardian is so transphobic that their own journalists penned an open letter to complain about it.
Almost anything you hear from the Guardian on trans gender issues is going to be heavily biased against trans people.
It's a certainty that you've not understood the Tavistock stuff.
> In contrast, children in their teens are now undergoing sterilizing surgeries under the label of gender-affirming care.
Not in the UK they're not, and I'd be surprised if it was happening in the US.
Neither is conversion therapy, but SEGM happily associates itself with advocates for it , along with evangelical organizations. Indeed, such advocates are found among 'expert witnesses' in the Tavistock case. Maybe Vice should report on these associations. Maybe people who are just deeply concerned about child welfare should pay attention to them, too.
https://segm.org/danger_of_conflation
If you care about kids, don’t ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests youth transition is overwhelmingly harmful. Don’t ignore stories like Chloe’s:
https://twitter.com/ChoooCole/status/1560495012999151616
The harm will be obvious to all once the lawsuits get rolling:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/britains-gender-youth-...
>If you care about kids, don’t ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests youth transition is overwhelmingly harmful. Don’t ignore stories like Chloe’s
I think that the fact that transphobes can weaponize a few more anecdotes about detransitioning this year than last year is not particularly meaningful. In the aggregate, these stories account for a tiny minority:
https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstract...
https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analys...
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(18)30057-2/fu...
The largest cohort comprises 8% of the sample, 62% of whom did so because they were pressured by their family, not because they had regrets about choosing to transition.
>The harm will be obvious to all once the lawsuits get rolling
Has the harm of MMR vaccination become obvious because lawsuits have managed to 'get rolling' and even succeeded in that context?
> The NHS-commissioned Cass Report details the many risks and gaps of evidence underlying youth transition:
The Cass review has led to the closure of the single clinic providing child trans healthcare in England, but has led to the opening of many more child trans healthcare clinics across England. The Cass review is clear that the problems were mostly lack of access to timely care. I don't understand why you think this is a victory for the anti-trans position, it simply isn't. Many more children are now going to be able to access timely care, and many more children will be able to access puberty blockers.
Given their history of harassing trans people for much, much less, I think this is an extremely charitable assessment.
Only behind the backs of their parents. They'd do what an actual doctor suggests if their parents weren't forcing a totalitarian gender ideology on their kids.
I recommend reading https://kiwifarms.net/help/how-is-the-kiwi-farms-legal/
The site is legal and the majority of users follow the law.
>8chan, a popular website for terrorist manifestos.
It wasn't that popular of a site and it's purpose wasn't for terrorist manifestos. It's purpose was to be an image board where users could create their own boards. The global moderators took down content that was illegal to host in the US. The most popular topics of discussion were anime, politics, technology, and video games.
Since the media was biased against the site, once an excuse came up to get the site taken down they pounced. They painted a misleading picture of what the site was about in hopes they could take down the site. They won and destroyed many innocent communities that called that site their home.
I guess that's part of the reason why there are very specific accounts in this thread promoting obvious misinformation without citing any sources.
People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The site already has a body count, this is ridiculous thing to say.
As said before.. Trolling or harassing isn't allowed. ("look don't touch")
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/07/23/how-toxic-onl...
I only state it again because this user is spreading deliberate misinformation all over the thread.
It's funny how nobody can actually come up with a media report or and actual death registered by japanese officials.. (Yes the japanese and US government track this kind of stuff and even release official reports.. but guess what's missing from the entire quarter in which near is said to have died)
https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-arrest-what-is-kiwifarms-...
People can also visit Wikipedia for more links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
Cloudflare CEO's own words: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
In short: Just claim Cloudflare are big Kiwi Farms supporters as many places you go. Eventually Matthew's ego will get bruised enough and the site will get taken down in another arbitrary manner.
Do you have anything to back that up? KF isn't even a political site.
>"Just claim Cloudflare are big Kiwi Farms supporters"
Which would be an outright lie and easily disproven.
That's some prime wordsmithing. Read it one way and it's debatably true or at least truthy. Read it another way and it's false. Confuse the two and the reader is now misinformed. Impressive rhetorical mischief.
> "hate or want to ridicule"
Is that one verb or two? Because the ridicule part is objectively true. But the hate part requires a) mind reading, and b) assuming that the feelings of a community of hundreds of people are all the same.
But you can't just say 'ridicule'. You need the 'hate' part to make your point. Hence: "hate or ridicule". As if it's all the same either way. Hate, ridicule, what's the difference? Humor, violence, what does it matter? Humor is hate, funny is violence.
I won't link to them, but here are some random threads easily obtained by Googling:
- "Is being a Nazi really that bad?" (Full of comments saying that, no, it isn't that bad, and in fact LGTB people are worse).
- "White Supremacy Megathread" (Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech).
- "Why do Kiwi Farms users so racist against blacks?" (Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site).
Just to be clear: I don't expect to convince you, because you're clearly lying constantly about the nature of the site in all your comments to defend it. I just want to provide some actual, real context for your lies.
One person giving off a list of things they think are worse who included "LGBTQ advocates" does not mean that the comment section is full of it. The thread was about the people and not the ideology.
>Thread where every single comment is a full-on racist screech
It was a 2 page shitpost thread full of everyone shitposting.
>Where every single comment tries to justify the racism of the site
This isn't true either and it was another shitpost.
>I don't expect to convince you
The approach of an outsider cherry picking threads from someone's community and then generalizing the whole community based those threads isn't effective because they know the picture you are painting of their community doesn't match what it's like to them.
Er, I don't think that's it:
> Now I can make an argument to say that we kicked them off because they they had alleged that we were supporters of theirs, or that they had harassed people who are submitting abuse complaints or lots of those things, but I think that’s a little bit hand-waving. If they had been a blog about shoes online, we would have cut them a lot more slack than we did. And if that’s the case, then that means that our feeling toward their content influenced our decision: which is the opposite of being neutral. I think that they are the exception that that shows why it’s so important to have to have rules.
- https://www.geekwire.com/2017/interview-cloudflares-ceo-stil...
If the CEO of Cloudflare thinks it's "little bit hand-waving" to say that claims of support were the reason they were dropped, I'm willing to say that's probably not it.
Is there no service provider that is a free-speech absolutist? Maybe someone needs to start that service. Unless you’re breaking an actual law, not a moral law, then you should be able to build your service and have a website.