The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website

gaytswiftfan , 9 months ago

I used to be close friends with one of their (founders?) back when he was younger

that sort of behavior used to run rampant on this video game forum we both frequented — he was always an interesting character to say the least. a shame what’s happening to so many young kids in need of mental help

PelicanPersuader , 9 months ago

Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an opinion piece arguing that Tier 1 ISPs should not bow to pressure to drop Kiwi Farms, calling the move “a dangerous step” toward censorship.

It’s all fun and games for the EFF until someone on that site starts publishing their employee’s SSNs and home addresses.

Griseowulfin , 9 months ago

Well the EFF defends internet expression and communications interests for users, even when it’s a shitty cause. Kinda like how the ACLU has defended Klansmen and similar groups. They generally believe the right to freedom of speech and expression is absolute, and if speech isthreatened for one group, it sets a precedent for other groups to be threatened too.

FlashMobOfOne , 9 months ago

I noticed that people who take an absolute view on certain rights don’t seem to buy into the concept of responsibility.

orizuru , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

The EFF has supported the prosecution of Kiwi Farms, but not by using ISP blocks.

They understand that setting a legal precedent like this may cause serious harm to other people in the future (e.g. women).

Once an ISP indicates it’s willing to police content by blocking traffic, more pressure from other quarters will follow, and they won’t all share your views or values. For example, an ISP, under pressure from the attorney general of a state that bans abortions, might decide to interfere with traffic to a site that raises money to help people get abortions, or provides information about self-managed abortions. Having set a precedent in one context, it is very difficult for an ISP to deny it in another, especially when even considering the request takes skill and nuance. We all know how lousy big user-facing platforms like Facebook are at content moderation—and that’s with significant resources. Tier 1 ISPs don’t have the ability or the incentive to build content evaluation teams that are even as effective as those of the giant platforms who know far more about their end users and yet still engage in harmful censorship.

eff.org/…/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no…

style99 , 9 months ago

Kiwi Farms is an active terrorist threat. Not taking them down is dangerous and irresponsible.

HiDiddlyDoodlyHo , 9 months ago

Fantastic article, thanks for sharing. I’m disappointed in the EFF’s stance here. I understand the reasoning but I don’t feel that such hateful, dangerous speech is a good candidate for this argument. (Hateful and dangerous as in actual deaths have occurred from this.)

admiralteal , 9 months ago

It's weird to me because the first time I ever heard someone being seriously critical of any absolute idea to free speech, at least at a high-level, was on the EFF's how to fix the internet podcast.

I'm with you. Their logic makes some sense, but it's just not practical or reasonable to me. I just don't see the slope as particularly slippery. Kiwi Farms was enthusiastically engaging in dangerous, heinous, and illegal activities.

Perhaps we do need some kind of serious due process for this kind of intervention. I'll sign that petition or forward to my reps that letter. But in the meantime, I'm happy to say bye to this scumb.

orizuru , 9 months ago

The EFF supported the prosecution of people from Kiwi Farms for their activities, just opposed their website to be taken out at the ISP level. I feel a lot of people jumped on the EFF without reading the full article.

Once an ISP indicates it’s willing to police content by blocking traffic, more pressure from other quarters will follow, and they won’t all share your views or values. For example, an ISP, under pressure from the attorney general of a state that bans abortions, might decide to interfere with traffic to a site that raises money to help people get abortions, or provides information about self-managed abortions. Having set a precedent in one context, it is very difficult for an ISP to deny it in another, especially when even considering the request takes skill and nuance. We all know how lousy big user-facing platforms like Facebook are at content moderation—and that’s with significant resources. Tier 1 ISPs don’t have the ability or the incentive to build content evaluation teams that are even as effective as those of the giant platforms who know far more about their end users and yet still engage in harmful censorship.

eff.org/…/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no…

Iunnrais , 9 months ago

Let’s say they were organizing using telephones instead. Would you want the telephone providers to proactively listen in on their conversations and cut them off based on content? No. You get the police or FBI to investigate and hunt down the people, possibly with warrants obtaining information from the telephone companies, and target the people doing the crimes.

I feel it should be exactly the same with ISPs. The ISP shouldn’t be doing the policing, the police should be doing the policing. The ISP’s job should be passing bits from MAC address A to MAC address B, nothing more.

t3rmit3 , 9 months ago

The EFF understands that “somebody do something!” is an invitation to erode liberty, and guarding against those types of power grabs by corporations and the government is important.

In this case, EFF is arguing that ISP’s should not have the ability to choose which sites to block. They are spot-on that this precedent would be used to block access to abortion assistance programs in Red States, and would get people killed.