93
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 10 points 1 year ago

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

[-] wahming@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I believe in the tolerance social contract. You deserve rights so long as you respect the rights of others. Kiwi farms has absolutely no respect for anybody's rights, and hence does not deserve any themselves.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree with you in principle. My only concern is who is judging, and making the decision that someone doesn't have any rights. If it's private companies? That's going to be very bad for all of us.

Imagine a small town power company turning off the power to a small town newspaper because they said something mean about their cousin the sheriff.

[-] sab@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Hear hear. Obviously this site should be shut down. But it should be done so on basis of fair trial. Not because of mob justice, or corporations that answer only to shareholders.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] waterbogan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You deserve rights so long as you respect the rights of others

This is the best approach and one had has far wider application beyond just the internet

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Paradox of tolerance* in effect

See below for a smarter user than me

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's the paradox of tolerance.

"A truly tolerant society cannot be tolerant of intolerance."

Not, "A truly intolerant society cannot be intolerant of tolerance."

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

They are not blocking the domain. They're making people drop their nazi-ISP from the internet backbone.

[-] eee@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 15 points 1 year ago

Good point.

At the geopolitical level if companies are censoring the West's free and open internet, what grounds do our politicians have to pressure more draconian countries not to censor their internet?

We have to demonstrate our principles if we want them to be adopted globally. If we demonstrate censorship... We will have it

There's a reason North Korea still has an internet connection

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 35 points 1 year ago

@L3s@lemmy.world - your bot seems to add undefined at the end of the text.

[-] L3s@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I'll fix it later this week!

[-] seeCseas@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

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

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 17 points 1 year ago

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!

[-] FiskFisk33@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] ameliawilliams@leminal.space 9 points 1 year ago

Kiwi Farms was stalking and enciting hatred towards trans people. They had a body count. I am glad they're offline.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

url

https://archive.ph/mJhey

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
93 points (89.1% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
4434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS