zlacker

The problem is you’re not solving anything with these antics. KF still exists and will continue to exist. It’s just book burning for the sake of feeling better with absolutely nothing to show for it. In this case not even the satisfaction of seeing a burned book.

People desperately want the world to be different, and it isn’t. It isn’t, and it won’t change massively within your singular life. So you can grandstand and congratulate yourselves on “winning” with the IA and CF decisions, but KF is still online and all you’ve done is make more people aware of their existence.

Furthermore, this idea of banning objectionable content ultimately ends in tyranny as the only way for you to possibly succeed on your mission is to add fundamental filters to the internet. No thanks.

>>parkin+(OP)
The idea that we must provide a platform for people to actively organize harassment campaigns designed to kill people in order to avoid "tyranny" is beyond absurd.

>>parkin+(OP)
Not only still online, but now their previous actions have been covered up for them! One could argue IA is pro-kf, why else would an archive intentionally destroy evidence?

>>badRNG+T
Nobody said that.

>>devwas+I1
By claiming censorship, it's implied that they deserve a platform, and to not have that taken away from them. You can't censor someone without a platform.

>>colejo+52
IA isn't a "platform". Claiming censorship does not mean deserving of a platform. Reality is they already have a platform, and will continue to do so, now in even more anonymous methods. Preventing users from being held responsible.

The best that could have been done is if CF continued to proxy it, and answered discovery and court orders, that way users could be unmasked and prosecuted. But now they got away free.

>>devwas+76
The IA can easily switch visibility of sites in the archive on or off and the most common case is when somebody changes their robots.txt settings. No data is lost. You don't really believe they would be unwilling to comply with a subpoena for information from a prosecutor investigating Kiwi Farms, or an attorney seeking damages in a civil suit, or whatever, do you?

>>devwas+76
The idea that the police cared or were going to do shit is laughable. As is the idea that we should keep KF online for that purpose.

> But now they got away free.

That was always going to happen. Keeping them/old content online was never going to change that. Our "justice" system is horribly broken.

>>devwas+F1
Obviously no-one can predict the future, but a reasonable assumption (I think) is that a future AI will be able to de-anonymize supposedly anonymous posters to Kiwi Farms. If someone is posting terrible opinion to Kiwi Farms, why should they be protected by archive.org from reaping what they sow?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Archive.org now provided more shade.

What I don't know is if Kiwi Farms _requested_ to be removed from Archive.org. As a publicity stunt, I could see a request for removal and then a wailing that they've been removed.

There was a minor kerfuffle with Snopes and a fact check of theirs which embarrased them. They later revised their fact check to no longer be embarassing. Problem was, archive.org still maintained the original. You can no longer find the original article from 2018 on archive.org. I'm sure that the only people who wanted the embarassing fact check removed were Snopes themselves. Archive.org was apparently happy to help them revise their history, by limiting how far back you can see anything in their library from Snopes.com.

>>colejo+52
You know about the Spanish Inquisition, right? Have you heard what Catholics say about it? They say that according to their records it wasn't that bad[0] and that the numbers are deliberately inflated by anti-Catholic sentiment.

It would be great if there were some other record keeper so we could ensure the church didn't "lose" any records that made them look bad.

But I'm sure you would have stopped any 3rd party back then who was setting out to transcribe the inquisitions' trials. After all, they were just giving the church yet another platform to spread their intolerance.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanit...

>>colejo+52
That's like saying pushing an object implies that it has a right to stand still. Censorship is simply when something is suppressed or prohibited. Whether or not you think the censorship is merited is a matter of opinion, not inherit to the word's definition.

>>badRNG+T
You’re missing the point I was trying to make. What you’re trying to achieve is literally impossible without tyranny. You will not ever eject KF from the internet as we know it today. You will not ever succeed in this goal.

But what you may ultimately accomplish is ushering in tyranny and government regulation of the internet in the name of censoring objectionable content.