zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
Whenever I read stories of big tech making decision to destroy some digital asset by taking decisions like this or banning people from their accounts (read gmail, google drive, etc.) It makes me shiver. They can put a brick wall in front of anyone's life/business.

>>firstS+fI1
I'm okay with removing someone from the internet if their business is to harass and dox people.

>>manuel+zI1
Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.

>>firstS+eJ1
Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own?

If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.

>>ohgodp+LR1
I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?

>>firstS+mT1
If you were to host your own forum, and people began using it to dox trans individuals with the explicit goal of harassing them, how would you react and what action(s), if any, would you take?

>>jjuliu+fV1
Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing.

IA is not being "bad", here. They're just being inconsistent. Either doxing/harassment is casus belli to scrub content, or it's not.

>>caeril+hZ1
> Probably the same actions taken on antifa forums that are used to dox Trump-voting boomers with the explicit goal of harassing them: nothing.

We do know that Kiwifarms was doxing people, but I would like to see proof of these "antifa forums", please.

"Antifa" has become such an umbrella term, it's almost mythological at this point.