- Joined
- Nov 10, 2021
How long until other vtubers follow
Kiwi Farms Reviews
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- May 17, 2015
"It's not that difficult for a website to outlast trans activists"
Beautifully worded.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
Of course she forgot to mention this.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2021
As soon as I saw this tweet it got deleted
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2019
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
Clearly a KF insider. One has to be an established user to gain access to our secret forums on killing disabled people:
Here by the way is Sady Doyle's thread, though it's a bit quiet:
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
Is this another push to take down the farms by pressuring companies and threatening to bomb their families again? Or is it just copy and pasting what that smear article said after it was published by that indian woman, all to score woke points on their sites.
Must be a fucking coincidence that the tranny killing fruitfarm site is being brought back into the light.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2022
"Kiwifarms is a nazi far-right doxxing harassment website going after me for no reason! I'm innocent and kind!"
"FUCK YOU KIWI FORUM AND NULL!!! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!"
Why are they always like this?
unexpected onions
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2022
Who's the troon replying to him? He seems like a well adjusted person.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2023
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
homosexuality
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Evil always screams, "I am good".
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
This one is in Spanish so I translated it, it repeats the same old lie of the three suicides and urges the justice system to do something about KF instead of Cloudflare because obviously this is an illegal website.
The Kiwi Farms case and the lethargy of justice
The Kiwi Farms case and the service loss with Cloudflare, aside from the nasty connotations that leads to, offers some interesting opportunities for analysis.
Lets begin with the context: what is Kiwi Farms? Simply put, an ultraconservative american online forum created to persecute and harass public figures, generally from the LGBTIQ+ scope, in which the users don't limit themselves to making jokes, saying barbarities or defaming, but instead regularly escalating their actions to sharing personal information such as adresses, etc. from some of their victims (doxxing), or filing false complaints of violent actions to provoke emergency missions from special police units (swatting). Some research links the exerted pressure by this forum with at least three suicides from victims that experienced their persecution.
As any controversial webpage exposed to the actions of those who oppose it, Kiwi Farms used to be forced to hire DDOS mitigation services from Cloudflare, without which there simply would be no way to keep the website active. Cloudflares stance in this sense is well known: although they have the power of omission - by simply stopping to lend their services - of censoring practically immediately any webpage, its cofounder and CEO, Matthew Prince, rejects partaking in such decision making even if that makes him face pressure from those who demand the closure of certain websites, and tries to establish that decision should never be his, but instead of justice. So he said in previous cases such as the neonazi pamphlet The Daily Stormer or the 8chan forum, in which it was made clear that "nobody should have the power to wake up in a bad mood one day and decide the presence of someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet", as repugnant or nasty that presence may be.
What is the difference with the Kiwi Farms case? Will Cloudflares history be a constant retaliation of presumably justified exceptions? In this case, according to the company in their website, this is about the imminent security problem for people: the website, after its "jump to fame" that has meant the elevated visibility of its actions, was escalating its attacks y putting in danger other potential victims. Therefore, and in view of the increasing social pressure, Cloudflare was obligated to consider Kiwi Farms the most dangerous customer in its history, and when taking the decision of ending its service without waiting for a judicial order, that requires a careful and potentially long reflection about freedom of expression and its limits thereof.
Where is the issue? Simply put, Cloudflare doesn't want to be submitted to the scrutiny and pressure of the public and having to trigger an internal reflection every time the shift imbecile arrives and creates a mess on the web. Its role is a technology provider that tries to mitigate the possible attacks a website may suffer, not a judge that lends or retracts permits. And logically, it demands that authorities play this role that is manifestly theirs, that of complying with the law and not relegating that responsibility to technology service providers. A role that, on top, has to be done quickly given that in many cases we can be talking about services that can mean damages to third parties if they aren't interrupted on time.
Do we want authorities capable of toppling down websites and in record time? Do we rather be guarantors and let authorities proceed with their necessary reflections and times? The answer is, without a doubt, complex. However, an interesting question emerges; why when we talk about, for example, an irregular download or streaming service being denounced by content providers, cases that only cause economic losses, justice tends to act swiftly, while when we talk about flagrant cases that put in danger the lives of people, justice decides to that its sweet time? Is Cloudflare right taking quicker action and implicating the authorities, despite the possible consequences that may have in the hands of what authorities? To the service of whom does justice often seem to be?
The Kiwi Farms case and the service loss with Cloudflare, aside from the nasty connotations that leads to, offers some interesting opportunities for analysis.
Lets begin with the context: what is Kiwi Farms? Simply put, an ultraconservative american online forum created to persecute and harass public figures, generally from the LGBTIQ+ scope, in which the users don't limit themselves to making jokes, saying barbarities or defaming, but instead regularly escalating their actions to sharing personal information such as adresses, etc. from some of their victims (doxxing), or filing false complaints of violent actions to provoke emergency missions from special police units (swatting). Some research links the exerted pressure by this forum with at least three suicides from victims that experienced their persecution.
As any controversial webpage exposed to the actions of those who oppose it, Kiwi Farms used to be forced to hire DDOS mitigation services from Cloudflare, without which there simply would be no way to keep the website active. Cloudflares stance in this sense is well known: although they have the power of omission - by simply stopping to lend their services - of censoring practically immediately any webpage, its cofounder and CEO, Matthew Prince, rejects partaking in such decision making even if that makes him face pressure from those who demand the closure of certain websites, and tries to establish that decision should never be his, but instead of justice. So he said in previous cases such as the neonazi pamphlet The Daily Stormer or the 8chan forum, in which it was made clear that "nobody should have the power to wake up in a bad mood one day and decide the presence of someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet", as repugnant or nasty that presence may be.
What is the difference with the Kiwi Farms case? Will Cloudflares history be a constant retaliation of presumably justified exceptions? In this case, according to the company in their website, this is about the imminent security problem for people: the website, after its "jump to fame" that has meant the elevated visibility of its actions, was escalating its attacks y putting in danger other potential victims. Therefore, and in view of the increasing social pressure, Cloudflare was obligated to consider Kiwi Farms the most dangerous customer in its history, and when taking the decision of ending its service without waiting for a judicial order, that requires a careful and potentially long reflection about freedom of expression and its limits thereof.
Where is the issue? Simply put, Cloudflare doesn't want to be submitted to the scrutiny and pressure of the public and having to trigger an internal reflection every time the shift imbecile arrives and creates a mess on the web. Its role is a technology provider that tries to mitigate the possible attacks a website may suffer, not a judge that lends or retracts permits. And logically, it demands that authorities play this role that is manifestly theirs, that of complying with the law and not relegating that responsibility to technology service providers. A role that, on top, has to be done quickly given that in many cases we can be talking about services that can mean damages to third parties if they aren't interrupted on time.
Do we want authorities capable of toppling down websites and in record time? Do we rather be guarantors and let authorities proceed with their necessary reflections and times? The answer is, without a doubt, complex. However, an interesting question emerges; why when we talk about, for example, an irregular download or streaming service being denounced by content providers, cases that only cause economic losses, justice tends to act swiftly, while when we talk about flagrant cases that put in danger the lives of people, justice decides to that its sweet time? Is Cloudflare right taking quicker action and implicating the authorities, despite the possible consequences that may have in the hands of what authorities? To the service of whom does justice often seem to be?
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
I think this is the most important line of that entire piece. The journalist assumes that every exception is inherently valid and justified. They do not even conceive of the possibility that it is not.
It also asks many questions, not a single one of which the piece answers.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
He probably posed them without answering as a thinly veiled way of saying 'yes, the authorities should shut down KF'. Such veneer serves to get the same public reaction while claiming such reaction was the decision of the public.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
I love it when the people who rely upon indoctrination, dogma, an “us and them” attitude, the silencing of anyone who doesn’t agree, the pushing of the ideology on children, the triumph of will over reality, and parades full of flags call me a Nazi.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2021
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2017
A nuanced perspective, but these people are looking for enemies, not nuance.
It doesn't matter if Kiwi Farms has an even 50/50 split between left and right wing, if you want to put people here into categories. These people believe that if you choose to share a space with anyone who disagrees with you, you agree by association.
For example, we have threads making fun of the January 6 protestors and the major figures involved. But these people will still see us as partially responsible because an incomprehensibly tiny group of users supported these protests. There's no use in attempting to reason with the unreasonable.