This is conflating two parts of my message. You cited CloudFlare's blog post as an example how it's "pretty clear" that Kiwi Farms breaks the laws. My point is that the blog post is completely vacuous and no evidence or examples have ever been shared with the public or the operator of Kiwi Farms.
I, for one, take CloudFlare at their word here. Do you not?
If he had evidence of something that constituted a threat to life, why didn't they share it with the operator of the Kiwi Farms so that it could be removed? If it was as damning and credible as he claimed, why did none of the authorities follow-up on it?
Would it be possible there's an ongoing investigation, and he was asked by authorities to not detail those posts for fear of letting them vanish in the wind?
My understanding is this is a common tactic used by law enforcement to prevent "spooking" the targets of an investigation.
Only Matthew Prince can shed light on the truth, but if he hasn't by now I doubt he ever will.
That's an interesting legal theory.
> Even the EFF's article says the site is full of crime and called on the cops to prosecute. This also means they won't defend your beloved website in court.
An organization making a claim is not evidence of the claim being true.
Only the claims you like are claims you will accept as true
My personal feelings are irrelevant. I judge claims based on the veracity of their evidence, as should everyone.