By claiming censorship, it's implied that they deserve a platform, and to not have that taken away from them. You can't censor someone without a platform.
You know about the Spanish Inquisition, right? Have you heard what Catholics say about it? They say that according to their records it wasn't that bad[0] and that the numbers are deliberately inflated by anti-Catholic sentiment.
It would be great if there were some other record keeper so we could ensure the church didn't "lose" any records that made them look bad.
But I'm sure you would have stopped any 3rd party back then who was setting out to transcribe the inquisitions' trials. After all, they were just giving the church yet another platform to spread their intolerance.
That's like saying pushing an object implies that it has a right to stand still. Censorship is simply when something is suppressed or prohibited. Whether or not you think the censorship is merited is a matter of opinion, not inherit to the word's definition.
IA isn't a "platform". Claiming censorship does not mean deserving of a platform. Reality is they already have a platform, and will continue to do so, now in even more anonymous methods. Preventing users from being held responsible.
The best that could have been done is if CF continued to proxy it, and answered discovery and court orders, that way users could be unmasked and prosecuted. But now they got away free.
The IA can easily switch visibility of sites in the archive on or off and the most common case is when somebody changes their robots.txt settings. No data is lost. You don't really believe they would be unwilling to comply with a subpoena for information from a prosecutor investigating Kiwi Farms, or an attorney seeking damages in a civil suit, or whatever, do you?
By claiming censorship, it's implied that they deserve a platform, and to not have that taken away from them. You can't censor someone without a platform.
You know about the Spanish Inquisition, right? Have you heard what Catholics say about it? They say that according to their records it wasn't that bad[0] and that the numbers are deliberately inflated by anti-Catholic sentiment.
It would be great if there were some other record keeper so we could ensure the church didn't "lose" any records that made them look bad.
But I'm sure you would have stopped any 3rd party back then who was setting out to transcribe the inquisitions' trials. After all, they were just giving the church yet another platform to spread their intolerance.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanit...
That's like saying pushing an object implies that it has a right to stand still. Censorship is simply when something is suppressed or prohibited. Whether or not you think the censorship is merited is a matter of opinion, not inherit to the word's definition.
IA isn't a "platform". Claiming censorship does not mean deserving of a platform. Reality is they already have a platform, and will continue to do so, now in even more anonymous methods. Preventing users from being held responsible.
The best that could have been done is if CF continued to proxy it, and answered discovery and court orders, that way users could be unmasked and prosecuted. But now they got away free.
The IA can easily switch visibility of sites in the archive on or off and the most common case is when somebody changes their robots.txt settings. No data is lost. You don't really believe they would be unwilling to comply with a subpoena for information from a prosecutor investigating Kiwi Farms, or an attorney seeking damages in a civil suit, or whatever, do you?
The idea that the police cared or were going to do shit is laughable. As is the idea that we should keep KF online for that purpose.
> But now they got away free.
That was always going to happen. Keeping them/old content online was never going to change that. Our "justice" system is horribly broken.