The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website
The endless battle to banish the world’s most notorious stalker website::undefined
I don't think we should ever celebrate people being deplatformed.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it
If the content is illegal pursue legal means to punish the posters. But to create a layer of censorship on the internet, that is enforced by opinions of companies, is a terrible precedent
But let's say they win, and they get the domain blocked everywhere. They'll just launch a new domain, just like all the pirate streaming sites do.
If a telecommunications provider disconnect someone because of content, they should lose their safe harbor provisions as a telecommunications provider. They should now be responsible for all content on their wires because they're now editorializing
To the ones down-voting this comment.
People keep piling up on the EFF without reading that 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.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it
The EFF supports prosecuting Kiwi Farms, they are just opposed to the dangerous precedent an ISP block sets.
To those down voting, you have to decide if the internet is a human right or not. If it is, it must be for everyone, or it is for no one. As soon as we make exceptions to basic rights, those rights get eroded for everyone. Because people in power will bend the exceptions to political expediency.
They are not blocking the domain. They're making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.
They are not blocking the domain. They’re making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.
That's fantastic news, I agree.
But who decides what should ISPs block next? Should Florida pressure American ISPs to block all abortion-related sites? Should Disney pressure ISPs to block all torrent sites?
Sure, the net effect is the site won't load.
Their onion site is still up, so not all of their data center links were severed
Friend, you do you, and in the meanwhile the rest of us are in fact going to be right there celebrating the fuck out of the deplatforming of a bunch of horrible people whose pastime is literally to drive trans kids to suicide.
Who is "the rest of us"?
🍻
Permanently Deleted
No, the whole point is that an isp should not be forced to do anything, unless ordered to do so by a court.
As the title mentions, this an endless chase if you approach it like this. Vigilante mobs aren't going to solve this, it's going to take specialist agencies with mandates to request data civilians can't. Crimes are being committed there (not murders, but a good way to get the scare votes, I suppose), and there are laws in place to deal with that.
As mentioned several times in this thread, shifting the responsibility for what is allowed to be said on the Internet from governments to corporate entities is a terrible precedent.
Edit: Nevermind. I see you're also responsible for this wonderful gem:
The position is intellectually dishonest unless you’re actually pro-killing-transgender people.
There's no point in arguing with you.
"We should allow companies that provide what is almost a necessity in the modern world the power to decide who gets to use it and who doesn't" is a hell of a take.
While we're at it, I don't think thieves deserve clean water. Utilities companies should shut off the water supply to households where thieves live.
The levels of exaggeration about kiwifarms is getting a bit much, of course everyone uses emotive language but this is just getting wild.
How many websites do you think should be blocked, all the ones that are as bad or worse than kiwifarms? Because there are a lot, so you want sweeping measures to restrict the internet and you don't see that having any problems or negative affects?
@L3s@lemmy.world - your bot seems to add
undefinedat the end of the text.Thanks, I'll fix it later this week!
For a site filled with users who are more tech-savvy than the average person, I'm surprised there is such a big dichotomy in views here. Or maybe it's just one or two really vocal individuals.
I think everyone is agreed that the site is a cesspool that deserves to die. The issue is that getting ISPs to voluntarily block sites based on advocacy is bad. As the provider of a "digital human right", ISPs should NOT get to decide who gets their service and who doesn't.
The EFF isn't supporting hate groups. What they're saying is that an ISP block is a dangerous precedent.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police-online-speech-no-matter-how-awful-it
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Founded in 2013, Kiwi Farms has been used to organize vicious harassment and stalking campaigns against targets including Clara Sorrenti, a transgender activist known as Keffals, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), a far-right Republican.
Over the past year, their little group of internet sleuths, trans engineers and activists has methodically chased Kiwi Farms across servers and networks around the globe, successively persuading more than two dozen companies to drop the site.
Sorrenti, a Twitch streamer who became famous as a news star for trans youth, had been under attack for months by Kiwi Farms users, who she said doxed her address and “swatted” her home, filing a false crime report that drove police to her door.
After earlier attempts to take down the site, he incorporated as his own internet service provider, acquiring his own physical hardware, network resources and a block of IP addresses, making Kiwi Farms much more difficult to dislodge.
The group slowly discovered a network of what they called “sh--hosts” — low-end internet providers who work with disreputable sites that spread malware or offensive content, arguing that they have a right to free speech.
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.
The original article contains 1,936 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It's not the job of isp's to block this.
It's not the job of the road infrastructure companies to block bad (or somehow illegal) drivers.
Kiwi Farms was stalking and enciting hatred towards trans people. They had a body count. I am glad they're offline.
OP this was a really good discussion. I think the comment section below demonstrates why fighting never-ending battles isn't the approach to solve systemic problems. Systemic problems need systemic solutions.
After all this discussion, I went to the site in question to see what all the fuss was about but I found a few things interesting.
The site, the site owner, is a known (with address and everything) US company. So fully under the jurisdiction of US courts.
They have a really interesting internet tier list, telling of all their history with different interconnects, isps, and other internet infrastructure.
I don't want to link to them, given how contentious it is, but their internet history is really fascinating and relevant to this post about 'wack-a-mole' internet services. I've included a link below to a archive.is snapshot of their internet history, which has some trigger words, but is mostly technical
Permanently Deleted
The question here comes down to 3 choices
Do you want a corporation to be able to decide what you can't look at?
Do you want your government to decide what you can't look at?
Do you want to decide what you don't look at?
And, like most things, people are going to want a little from each column. Figuring out the proper lines is the tricky part. The EFF stance is the net neutrality stance. Your stance is the Section 230 stance. Both are good things in different situations.
In this case, because there is most often no consumer choice in ISPs, net neutrality is the EFF-preferred position when dealing with them. This leaves it to the government (and society at large) to craft and/or enforce specific laws to control the undesired behavior, which is often a mistake, too. But it's generally a better societal moderator than a single monpolistic corporation is.