HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

thrwaway1234567

16 karma · joined August 5, 2023

submissionscomments
thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
>(b) No person may knowingly and intentionally disclose, cause to be disclosed or threaten to disclose, with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce, an image of another which shows the intimate parts of the depicted person or shows the depicted person engaged in sexually explicit conduct which was captured under circumstances where the person depicted had a reasonable expectation that the image would not be publicly disclosed.

From "W. Va. Code §61-8-28a: Nonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images; definitions; and penalties."

There is nothing in the law that says it only bans illicit recordings (like creepshot videos). If you share a video that someone took of themself, you can be be prosecuted under it.

But yes, there is this clause in the law:

>(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on the provider of an interactive computer service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §230(f)(2), an information service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(24), or telecommunications service as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(53), for content provided by another person.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
It's like I explained above. It's safe to assume they don't care that much about free speech, because Null has banned people for dissent.

An example: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/JcaLQ

I don't think a free speech absolutist would secretly ban people for criticizing him.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
>He doesn't allow doxxing out of a commitment to free speech.

To rephrase that sentence: Free speech isn't the reason he allows doxing on the forum.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
He also hasn't lost any cases yet. Other than Melinda Scott, all the other lawsuits against him are ongoing.
thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
Service providers have already been policing websites. It didn't start with kiwifarms.

If you go on twitter and look at the profiles of registrars like namecheap, you'll often see them stating they will drop service to websites which are accused of being scams, spam or otherwise malicious.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
>imo some sort of safe harbor mechanism is a reasonable compromise. we can't expect the host to prevent every single instance of abusive content, but we should require them to make some kind of reasonable effort.

I'd say Kiwifarms has failed to make that kind of reasonable effort.

There is a good faith moderation clause in part of section 230, but I'm not sure how it has been enforced in the past or if it is similar to what you are thinking of.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
> Well for starters that Kiwifarms killed Byuu. There is no evidence that it was bullying or harassment from kiwi farms that caused his him to commit suicide.

Byuu/Near is the one who blames kiwifarms in their suicide note on twitter.

https://twitter.com/near_koukai/status/1408940057235312640

Archived link, since twitter isn't usable without login: https://archive.ph/HmIcA

Here's part of what they said in that thread:

>But Kiwi Farms has made the harassment orders of magnitude worse. It's escalated from attacking me for being autistic, to attacking and doxing my friends, and trying to suicide bait another, just to get a reaction from me. I lost one of my best friends to this. I feel responsible

>[...]

>It's too late for me, but I pray that someone, at some point, will do something about that website. There's too many people suffering, and no one seems to care because we are relative nobodies online, and they know that. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

>[...]

>I would have kept going if Joshua Moon had shown me just the tiniest bit of compassion. But he chose not to. That's not on me, that's on him. That's on every last person who pushed me to this point and didn't let up. I never deserved any of this.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
If he just wanted kiwifarms to be a gossip forum he could have banned doxxing.

He doesn't allow doxxing out of a commitment to free speech. The forum doesn't actually have that much free speech. If you criticize him you will get banned pretty fast.

There isn't much transparency either. Banned users aren't marked as being banned. And bans are often done without public notification. So unlike most forums, you can't tell if someone has been banned.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
>In other words, an open internet. Doxxing is not illegal if your intent is not considered harassment or threatening (if it's just for "public shame" or ridicule, that's allowed). If the website or Josh's conduct WAS so illegal, it would have been dealt with already. You're whining at the wrong person, or perhaps, pissing into the wrong wind.

He also allows revenge porn (wich is illegal to distribute in most of the usa), as I have mentioned elsewhere. He's also refused to ban hackers before, and instead chose to punish someone criticizing them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396348

>He continues to be sued every couple of months at least, by lots of angry people who were upset at things that were posted, whether by him or others, and he has won against them every single time. I think Melinda alone has sued him like six times, and always lost.

He's only been sued by 3 people in total. 2 of them have ongoing lawsuits against him. All of them are pro-se litigants and are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Melinda is the only person he's won against so far. He didn't win because of the merits of his case, he won because the other side wasn't capable of arguing theirs.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
I don't think he'd qualify for the good faith moderation mentioned in section 230.

He's only won cases against Melinda Scott.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
What unfounded allegations about the site have been allowed?
thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
Some of the examples are rather recent, and there's no evidence of the site's behavior changing. The point is that the site has allowed harassment, contrary to what the owner claims.

How have the complaints against him been tortious interference? As far as I am aware, they have been factual.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, he's allowed revenge porn (which is illegal in most of the usa) and hackers on his forum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396348

Revenge porn has gotten the forum dropped by some providers. One of the complaints Liz fong jones had about the forum was that her social security number was being shared on there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/03/kiwifar... I think that has gotten kiwifarms dropped by other providers, since it apparently this came up in her leaked emails complaining about the forum.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
That page I linked lists all of the laws in the usa about revenge porn. Kiwifarms isn't based in nevada as far as I am aware, I believe it's west virginia or florida.
thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
It's archived links to things the owner of the site has said. Instead of complaining about keffals, why don't you address the complains there.
thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
>Revenge porn isn't generally illegal to post. Posting pornography as revenge is the illegal bit, generally speaking.

IIRC, there are laws against sharing revenge porn in 48 states. They don't require you to be the person it was originally shared to: https://cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-distribution-of-i...

>Also, harassment is illegal in some cases, but talking on a public forum generally doesn't qualify. If the parties talked about it publicly and then committed it, that's their problem.

If the example of Null asking his users to harass someone doesn't count, then at what point can something be considered organized harassment?

Another example is the user "Not Based and Redpilled" hacking the game developer of Yandere Simulator. Other users were egging him on and giving suggestions on how to misuse the hacked account. Null was aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law, but didn't punish the hacker. In fact the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/03/kiwifar...

Her Social security number was posted on KF, and this is something that came up in her leaked complaint emails.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
I assume part of the confusion that people have is that kiwifarms harassment is not (always) blatantly obvious. Most of the time, they don't outright say "go harass this person" (unlike other sites).

The users claim they have rules against harassment and that they don't engage in it. But as demonstrated by the links I've posted elsewhere in this thread, that is not entirely true. The owner of the site has admitted to allowing harassment, and has even directed it on some occasions

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
Plenty of that stuff is more recent.

>He's fine with stolen credit card and social security numbers being posted to the forum: https://archive.fo/rOKai

That is from last year. But I accidentally posted the wrong archive link in that example. Here is the correct one: https://archive.is/0fOcS

This is from late last year: https://archive.is/pha8Q#75% He admits he won't ban users who break the law.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
In your article you state that kiwifarms has rules against harassment:

>If I ask Google Gemini to describe the Kiwi Farms in a sentence, it tells me “a controversial web forum known for its users' online harassment and stalking campaigns against various individuals and communities”, despite the Kiwi Farms having explicit and enforced rules against contacting people off-site (i.e. harassment).

Could you comment on the contradictory statements you have said elsewhere? Such as the ones where you admit that you turn a blind eye to harassment: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...

Why weren't these rules enforced against users such as "Not Based and Redpilled" when he hacked the game developer of Yandere Simulator? You were aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law. In fact, the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
Some news articles about kiwifarms might get a few minor details wrong. I've seen one mix up the timeline of the site's founding. But they describe the site's content accurately. The wikipedia article for kiwifarms seems fair to me.

Here are citations of actual things the site owner has said: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
There are things on the website aren't legal speech or are at least legally questionable. Harassment is illegal for one.

The owner is fine with revenge porn being posted, and this has gotten him blocked by some hosts. He's also said he won't ban users who commit illegal acts.

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
Kiwifarms and it's owner are well known to be transphobic. They have a subforum specifically for making fun of transgender people.

Aside from what you mentioned in regards to the court case, there's plenty of other issue with kiwifarms as well: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...

thrwaway1234567··on Online censorship's institutional power
He's somewhat misrepresenting the content of his forums: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...

Keep that in mind when discussing how kiwifarms relates to the open internet that Null allows a lot of questionable things. A few examples:

He's fine with stolen credit card and social security numbers being posted to the forum: https://archive.fo/rOKai

He's admitted that the rules against harassment are only enforced if it embarrasses him: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/GXIFB

He's openly asked his users to harass people: https://archive.fo/WMrvv

He's admitted that he created secret forums where users could plan harassment campaigns, while he turned a blind eye to it: https://archive.fo/rOKai

thrwaway1234567··on Kiwi Farms ruling sets "dubious" copyright precedent, expert warns
I disagree with certain statements the article made. Null, the site's admin, didn't merely post the text and email conversation of the copyright claim after refusing to take down the material, he also insults and mocks the person involved. Null also stated that "In this specific instance, I will waive whatever safe harbor protections I have and personally burden liability for posting it." At one point he tells greer to "put this in your lawsuit cuck".

It's also worth noting that users of the site apparently doxxed the lawyer involved in this case.

Bear in mind that Null is probably acting in bad faith. He has outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that. Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up and did not ban the user: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

thrwaway1234567··on Kiwi Farms ruling sets "dubious" copyright precedent, expert warns
I disagree with certain statements the article made. Null, the site's admin, didn't merely post the text and email conversation of the copyright claim, he also insults and mocks the person involved. Null also stated that "In this specific instance, I will waive whatever safe harbor protections I have and personally burden liability for posting it." and later in the conversation he invited Greer to sue him after he refuses to take down the copyrighted material.

It's also worth noting that users of the site apparently doxxed the lawyer involved in this case.

Null is probably acting in bad faith. He has outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that. Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up and did not ban the user: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

thrwaway1234567··on The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit card numbers. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are other examples of private financial information being posted on the site.
thrwaway1234567··on ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
They just bring up the unsympathetic ones as a defense for what they are doing.

A lot of their targets are more sympathetic. For instance, the moderators have said they are ok with doxxing children: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/DSt5K

thrwaway1234567··on ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that. Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

I could probably post many other examples. Null is entirely willing to host revenge porn on his website. He's also willing to host nudes that he knows were stolen by hackers.

People probably aren't going to want to send takedown requests, when that requires revealing their identity to a site that is known for doxing and harassing people.

thrwaway1234567··on ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
>a fairly small forum with a bunch of mean-spirited people telling mean-spirited "jokes".

That is true, but that is only part of the story. If that was all, the website would not be so notorious.

Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and information about relatives is all allowed. Obviously, if they didn't want their targets harassed, they wouldn't post that.

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is haphazardly enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

I could probably post many other examples.

thrwaway1234567··on ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
If you went down a rabbit hole and done research, you should have been able to find evidence of such things. And there is a lot of bad stuff they've done that hasn't gotten mentioned by their Wikipedia article.

Kiwifarms, now banned, official twitter page said their goal was “exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. ( Source: https://archive.is/jYp5p ).

I think Kiwifarms is (borderline) criminal. Null, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS . There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.

I would describe them as operating with a paper thin layer of "plausible" deniability. Officially you aren't allowed to harass or interact with the targets. But posting their home address, stolen passwords, phone numbers, and private information about relatives is all allowed. (Which would have no use if they were simply a gossip forum).

But even the rule against interacting with "lolcows" (called "cowtipping") is rarely, if ever, enforced. For example, one user had sex with a "lolcow" and posted photos. The admin explicitly said they would allow the content to remain up: https://archive.is/zYnpK#35%

Page 1 of 2Next →