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.
IA is not being "bad", here. They're just being inconsistent. Either doxing/harassment is casus belli to scrub content, or it's not.
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.
Google (and facebook, twitter, paypal, etc) does that with regularity today, every once in awhile someone with reach in the tech community has it happen to them, some programmer or researcher, etc and it makes the news here but political commentators are banned every day off google sites because some one with enough influence on twitter targeted them for being a "shithead" in their view.
What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
This whole mess has some real rabbit holes, but anyone who does a little research will find a lot of the claims used to drum up hysteria are quite wanting in the way of facts or proof.
This is true, in some jurisdictions, in the same sense that it is true that homicide is not illegal.
Doxxing with particular intent is illegal in those jurisdictions; e. g., California where Penal Code § 653.2 was adopted specifically to address harassment by doxxing.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
And in the context of KF, harassment and even interacting is against the rules. Attempting to do anything illegal, making threats or swatting etc are literal instant bans with your info being handed over to law on request.
There was a follow-up: Why? KiwiFarms clearly allows this doxxing to occur on a daily basis, and I know that you know this. While it's not illegal, if you don't feel that doxxing is generally OK, why do you feel that it's OK for KF users to continue to go to the extent that they do?
>More importantly, doxxing isn't illegal and is done by major media and orgs
Two wrongs do not make a right.
>Not to mention it seems like ~95% of what is being called doxxing here is posting publicly available (usually posted the the person themselves) info.
There is a significant difference there. A lot of the information that is publicly available is information that has to be compiled. Someone has to go to the effort to look through all of the nooks and crannies to obtain what they want. KiwiFarms saves time and compiles general publicly available data that might be "difficult" to obtain to some degree, often times alongside otherwise private photos and information that individuals might not want widely disseminated, even if they did share it. This compiled data can make it easier and more likely for bad actors to do harm than if they had to go to greater lengths to obtain that info.
The fact that massive, multi-page forums threads can exist with tons of users providing all of this data and talking about these people is enough to cause mental damage to the targets of these threads. Actions need not be direct nor illegal to be harmful, and you know just as well as I do that there have been plenty of examples of people claiming harm from the existence of such threads.
Even if the behavior is not allowed and banned, the environment is still rife to encourage it. The further you allow people to go, legal or not, the more comfortable they're going to get with the boundaries that they push. This is evidenced by the historical instances of swatting and direct harassment that have stemmed from KF despite it's own rules against it, even apparently as recently as a few weeks ago.
>My feelings are irrelevant to my arguing.
That might be the case, but arguing in support of KF here is essentially arguing in support of what I just described above.
Not really; showing that rules like that are conscious fig leaves and actually indicators of knowledge and intent is... not at all uncommon. Lots of sites taken down by law enforcement for deliberate facilitation of prostitution or human trafficking had “don’t use this platform for prostitution/trafficking” rules, too.
They weren't being hosted by CF, they were getting protection against illegal DDoS attacks. CF DDoS protection is an infrastructure service. Infrastructure level services picking and choosing who is allowed and not allowed, is a very dangerous thing. Such action quickly risk unraveling the entire net.
How old are you? Surely you're aware that this has been an option for all infrastructure level services since the inception of the world wide web? And that this is by no means the first (there have been thousands upon thousands of decisions made like this, large and small), nor the last, time this will happen? And that in the 30+ years of the web's existence these kinds of infrastructure level services have been executing these options, the "entire net" has yet to "unravel" and sites like KF and 8chan, et al continue to find homes on the internet?
I agree regarding the freely available information (which often involved self-made drama). There is nothing bad about archiving it per se. With one interjection: some of this information is decades-old. While the right to forget does not exist on the internet, if people reflected on things, admitted they made mistakes and changed their perspective, it should be possible for any sensible webmaster/reader, to allow some kind of redemption.
This was exactly the case with byuu - he realized past mistakes, openly admitted and wanted a somewhat fresh start. But KW's webmaster did not allow it. At this point I percieved KF as openly cruel and kind of showing their true colors.
From what I've seen it wasn't as straightforward as that. The operator, Null, shared the email exchange and there seems to have been less than 24 hours between Byuu's first message and his last.
Null's last message was this, after which he went to bed (apparently, idk the timezones involved in this). It doesn't seem like a "no".
> I feel like you're being genuine. There's a fear here that you're just trying to prank me to show people "look, Josh just wants money", but it's one of the small subsets of concerns at play here. > > So hear me out: Send me your resume, I'll make you a counter offer.