zlacker

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+(OP)
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?

>>firstS+(OP)
Yeah ? In the same way that if you're in my home and someone comes to me telling me you're being a shithead, and there's verifiable proof that you're being a shithead at the very moment, you're going out.

>>jjuliu+T1
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+V5
> 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.

>>jjuliu+T1
I don't understand the point of your example because that isn't what is happening here. Harassing is against the rules and will get you banned.

>>firstS+(OP)
>>>decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?

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.

>>HereIG+va
You are demonstrating a clear failure to understand not only the magnitude of what occurs, and can occur, when someone is doxx'd, but also KiwiFarms' history as a party to specific incidents of suicide and external harassment as a result of said doxx'ing on that site.

>>caeril+V5
The closest I've seen to this in real life is people pawing through 1/6 photos to identify criminals and report them to the police. I don't hang out on antifa forums tho, care to enlighten us where that's happening?

>>jjuliu+nd
Doxxing is not illegal, if posting publicly available info can even be called that. The only suicide that was actually blamed on the site by the victim, is someone nobody can show any official or direct evidence of's death. The second of the 3 alleged deaths, literally blamed the mental health system and becoming homeless the day before.. no mentions of kiwifarms.. It was online "allies" after the fact that made the link among efforts to get the site shut down in the past. All of the claims largely cases of "if you say something enough times people will start repeating it"

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.

>>HereIG+Lj
> Doxxing is not illegal

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....

>>dragon+cm
There are exceptions but the point still mostly stands. Secondly, "with intent" the rules of the site explicitly forbid harassing or interacting so that's going to be quite a claim, even in those rare exceptions, to make let alone prove. Plus, a lot of what we are talking about isn't likely to qualify anyway since most of it is simply posting publicly available information, usually from the person themselves and still available from their accounts/SM etc.

>>firstS+(OP)
If Google wants to, yes.

>>HereIG+Yo
> the rules of the site explicitly forbid harassing or interacting so that's going to be quite a claim

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.

>>dragon+Uw
Not really. Those rules are and have been enforced quite strictly. In order to show intent you're going to have to do a lot better than just saying they posted it so it's their fault. And again, we are mostly talking about public info that the person themselves has openly posted online. That's not private information no matter how you look at it.

>>HereIG+az1
On the one hand, we have freely shared information. On the other hand, meta information obtained by digital stalking (or, in some cases, literal stalking). The later is absolutely not ok.

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.

>>jbuhbj+eV3
> But KW's webmaster did not allow it.

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.

https://archive.ph/R1oRN