Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cyberdog | Hacker News Reader

> How about this: try posting an URL for kiwifarms or stormfront or whatever right here, in this thread. See if it stays up. See who's willing to tolerate it.

Man, I almost did. But people just get so irrationally angry about words on the internet nowadays that I decided against tempting fate. I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now.

Yes, Kiwi Farms exists and has information and opinions you might not like. It certainly has ones that I don't like. But at the end of the day, it's just words on the internet; the stuff about "organized harassment campaigns" and all that is a media lie. I really wish people would just visit the place and realize that it's just a bunch of shitposters with a clear "look, laugh, but don't touch" mentality and not the demonic bogeyman the press has made it out be. But I realize that irrational hatred is faster and easier, so…

View on HN

> I don't need people trying to destroy my career because I don't irrationally hate the right people right now.

You don't "irrationally" hate them probably because you happen not to fit the target profile.

EDIT: And are you serious? You truly think that KiwiFarms is a quirky, harmless place that just collects info to do nothing with it, and at the same time believe that on HN you'd be targeted by people who'd try to ruin your life? What force keeps such nasty people off kiwifarms but allows their presence here, I wonder?

> Yes, Kiwi Farms exists and has information and opinions you might not like. It certainly has ones that I don't like. But at the end of the day, it's just words on the internet;

There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously.

> the stuff about "organized harassment campaigns" and all that is a media lie.

Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate profiles on people including personal information are some sort of enlightened beings that despite obsessively tracking down and compiling every embarrassing or weird thing about another person would never actually use that information for anything at all.

> There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously.

How do you decide which words people should be allowed to read, and which words they should not be allowed to read?

I wasn't talking about that, but since you asked: My personal views and morals, just like everyone else. If you're on something I host, then I make the rules on my property.

So immoral things should be excised from wikipedia?

That's for Wikipedia to decide. I'm not a member.

But if you owned wikipedia, you feel it would be best to remove immoral things from it?

Depends on what you mean.

If you mean documenting its existence, then no, because we have to learn from history. So I wouldn't have an issue with an article on antisemitism or the like.

But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening. If I suddenly ended up owning Stormfront or Kiwifarms, I would absolutely pull the plug and burn it all to the ground with no warning.

> But if I found out that something I own actually helps Nazis, then yes, I'd do my best to stop that from happening.

But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis. I would argue that censorship helps nazis. The real nazis were completely censored from Weimar radio and Goebbels touted Der Angriff as "the most censored newspaper" by the German government. What is our standard for "helps"?

Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk page, but retained with rather pointed language.

> But the internet helps nazis. Telephones help nazis.

I'm a consequentialist. I'll make the decision based on the overall consequences. So for instance the internet helps nazis, but it also does a lot of good for a lot more people. Now if the effect of the internet was 99% to help nazis, that would be a problem.

> Side note: the wikipedia article for stormfront retains the link to the site. Removal was discussed on the Talk page, but retained with rather pointed language.

Like I said, that's up to them to decide. If it was up to me, I would not allow that link.

> I'm a consequentialist.

That's how I lean too. I'm maybe just more leery of the long term consequences of censorship and proscribed ideas. I think they are ultimately poisonous.

> If it was up to me, I would not allow that link.

How would you write that policy for wikimedia, so your editors would know which articles could link to the website they describe, and which could not?

> That's how I lean too. I'm maybe just more leery of the long term consequences of censorship and proscribed ideas. I think they are ultimately poisonous.

Over the years, I figured that in practice pretty much nobody is truly willing to commit absolutely to their ideals. Everyone has a breaking point where if they have bad enough consequences, ideals will be discarded.

Musk is showing this on Twitter right now.

And I think most any sane person would do the same, because unyielding commitment can trivially be taken advantage of. Eg, if you open up your house to absolutely everyone, and hold steadfast when people start punching holes in the walls, eventually you won't have a house to offer anymore.

> How would you write that policy for wikimedia, so your editors would know which articles could link to the website they describe, and which could not?

That highly depends on my position, the leadership structure, the state of the organization, and so on. As per the above I have some moral flexibility and will compromise somewhat for the greater good.

They've allegedly had threads on Wikipedia editors (I haven't personally verified this, as I don't feel like learning how to navigate that site, but it was stated by people I find credible). So, no, immoral things should be documented on Wikipedia, but we're perfectly within our rights to protect our community.

Oh, God, I'm being dragged into this debate again.

> There's no such thing as "just words on the internet". Words express beliefs and intent. I take them seriously.

Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or promptly deleted. Go ahead.

> Of course. The sort of people that compile elaborate profiles on people including personal information are some sort of enlightened beings that despite obsessively tracking down and compiling every embarrassing or weird thing about another person would never actually use that information for anything at all.

Create an alt account on KF and post in a lolcow's thread saying that you want to harm that person in real life. You'll be downvoted into oblivion, probably banned, possibly doxed if you used the same username as you use elsewhere, and possibly reported to law enforcement.

You can believe what you're told by people with motivation to lie, or you can discover the truth. Up to you.

They post contact information, links to profiles where the user can be contacted, and so on, right? If so, they're complicit in whatever people do with that information, even if they don't talk about it on the forums.

I think that is a fair line of reasoning.

Most online forums have rules against doxing. Then again, most online forums have problems with anonymous users making false claims.

Is wikipedia likewise complicit for publishing articles on nefarious topics? How about linking to macdonalds.com, who is surely complicit in more deaths than kiwifarms?

Sure, it's also complicit, but the cost-benefit analysis favors Wikipedia, whereas KF has a much higher bar of utlity to clear because it's publishing information that would be trivial to use to hurt specific individuals. What value could KF provide that's worth that pain? I don't think there's any.

> it's publishing information that would be trivial to use to hurt specific individuals

But so do a lot of organizations. It's legal for kiwifarms' users and it's legal for the phone company, the federal election commission and for my city government too.

> What value could KF provide that's worth that pain? I don't think there's any.

What pain, exactly though? People claim that there have been suicides, but the claims seem dubious at best. If you call someone out for misappropriating funds and they commit suicide, is that on you?

What value? Many reporters (and regular humans) use kiwifarms to get a sense of the history, backstories and relationships of online figures and groups.

By that logic, if someone uses a phone book to harass you via telephone, the phone company is liable.

Or, for a more up-to-date example, if someone uses a DNS provider to find a server's IP address and do a DDOS attack against it (as is constantly happening to KF), the DNS provider would be liable.

The phone book and DNS provider are different because they don't say why one would want to harass those people, whereas on KF that information is provided along with their contact info.

> Intent? Find me a post on KF stating intent to harm someone in real life which wasn't either downvoted or promptly deleted. Go ahead.

Are you new to online communities? I've been a core member of several for years.

There's always politics, admin only channels, and people contacting each other outside the main system. Sometimes multiple levels, like two admins talking in private, then adding a third, then bringing it into the admin channel, then breaking the news into the main community.

In communities where there's external attacks, or a concern with reputation, the people in charge typically take that seriously. It's very possible that something is publicly forbidden, but with the right contacts you can find the right people.

> Create an alt account on KF and post in a lolcow's thread saying that you want to harm that person in real life.

Which is unsurprising because formerly kiwifarms used traditional hosting, and had to at least keep some plausible deniability. But everyone knows what all that stuff they post is for.

> You'll be downvoted into oblivion, probably banned, possibly doxed if you used the same username as you use elsewhere, and possibly reported to law enforcement.

Sure, and if you know the right people on the right Discord, then you can avoid all that and discuss all the plans and share all the juicy news away from prying eyes.

Besides which, the info is public. Anyone can act on it without being a member, or having any agreement on anything with people posting there.

> There's always politics, admin only channels, and people contacting each other outside the main system.

Okay, so KF is responsible for conversations that happen outside of KF now? What should KF's admins do about that?

> Sure, and if you know the right people on the right Discord, then you can avoid all that and discuss all the plans and share all the juicy news away from prying eyes.

Take that up with Discord, then.

> Okay, so KF is responsible for conversations that happen outside of KF now?

No, I mean that any organization is more than what it presents publicly. The people that own KF, and the people that post on it are going to have more ways to talk to each other than to post on public threads.

> Take that up with Discord, then.

No, I take it up with the people who use Discord to this end first of all. And with Discord second, of course, if they know that's going on there and allow it.

Hey when you think that everyone else is being irrational guess what?

You may or may not be the irrational one. Would you like historical examples?

Oh and you think you are exceptional too. Shall we go for the trifecta?

> Oh and you think you are exceptional too.

Of course. Everyone does.

> Shall we go for the trifecta?

Shall we put your notion in a historical context or no?

Unless you are someone of historical significance, no.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd opt for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com