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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
Readit News
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
Deleted Comment
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
Dead Comment