Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.
I'm not comfortable with people being forced at metaphorical gunpoint to host or deliver objectionable content, and that appears to be what you're proposing here. If we want governments to mandate due process standards, they can be the ones to host that content as a provider-of-last-resort.
Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own?
If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.
I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?
That's the problem though. Legal gears move slowly, and you know that Kiwifarms would've kept destroying people's lives and driving people to suicide until they got shut down. I would've preferred actual legal action rather than companies dropping KF because they're bad for business, but the end goal of getting them shut down is the same.
Who's lives and what deaths? Most of the (3) people claimed to have died, didn't claim anything of the sort. (in fact the one that activists like to bring up most, who is actually dead, literally blamed the mental health system and being made homeless the day before) The one person who did blame them seems to have died without leaving any proof for official records of both the Japanese or American governments. Just the word of a friend and a former (as in even before death) employer.
What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
If somebody breaks into your house, you should wait for due process with accordance of law. Homeowners shouldn't make unilateral decisions about who is and is not legally allowed in their home.
except in this case, the owner of the "house" (website) is fine with the visitors. Instead, another organization (the HOA?) wants to kick out the owner because they don't like the visitors that he's inviting.
There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.
Absolutely. When there is a due process and it is done with the accordance of law that we are all supposed to abide. Not by unilateral decision of a tech CEO/Staff.
I'm not comfortable with people being forced at metaphorical gunpoint to host or deliver objectionable content, and that appears to be what you're proposing here. If we want governments to mandate due process standards, they can be the ones to host that content as a provider-of-last-resort.
Do you believe that being on the Internet Archive is a god-given right and that only a judge should be able to tell IA to delete the work that IA chooses to do on their own?
If you're a shithead in a club, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead with your family, you get kicked out. If you're a shithead on the internet, you also get kicked out.
I do not believe any shithead should be given a pass. My comment was mostly about who decides who is a shithead. If tomorrow someone famous/outreaching enough on twitter/etc. decides that I am a shithead, should google close my account?
16 replies →
That's the problem though. Legal gears move slowly, and you know that Kiwifarms would've kept destroying people's lives and driving people to suicide until they got shut down. I would've preferred actual legal action rather than companies dropping KF because they're bad for business, but the end goal of getting them shut down is the same.
Who's lives and what deaths? Most of the (3) people claimed to have died, didn't claim anything of the sort. (in fact the one that activists like to bring up most, who is actually dead, literally blamed the mental health system and being made homeless the day before) The one person who did blame them seems to have died without leaving any proof for official records of both the Japanese or American governments. Just the word of a friend and a former (as in even before death) employer.
What legal actions could anybody went after? They don't allow illegal activities and don't even allow interaction from the site. Even talking about it is banned. Why do you think so many attempts to take them down have failed. They follow the law and openly work with it if something illegal does happen... Including the FBI.
3 replies →
you think they are just gonna go "oh well it was a good run, let me go volunteer at the soup kitchen now"?
If somebody breaks into your house, you should wait for due process with accordance of law. Homeowners shouldn't make unilateral decisions about who is and is not legally allowed in their home.
except in this case, the owner of the "house" (website) is fine with the visitors. Instead, another organization (the HOA?) wants to kick out the owner because they don't like the visitors that he's inviting.
1 reply →
There is no process to be had here though. Harassing is and always was against the site rules (as is interacting at all really) and "doxxing" (let alone post publicly available info) isn't illegal.
Ah, right, I almost forgot - if a thing's legal then there are never any negative ramifications that come from it and everything's sunshine and roses!
5 replies →