If you read up on the Kiwifarms Wikipedia page [0] it sounds like someone needs to go to jail. Until this moment I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence - but now I can see it. If the site doesn't break laws then there is no reason to ban it. But there are criminals using that site and they should be caught. Banning the site is just dodging the real problem.
Specifically, wikipedia is not an unbiased source on any issue that is of particular concern to the terminally online. Anything to do with US politics or culture war is going to be heavily distorted due to the nature of the beast (its something people care a lot about, there were strong founder effects and there was a purity spiral).
The sources that are allowed/disallowed and their respective biases (e.g. what they publish or don't say) are a big factor.
I have in the past[1], several times It gets old having the same false things posted over and over. often my posts[1] with the linked are also "flagged" because people here do not want to truth, they want the narrative.
> I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”
The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.
Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces. One is bordering on an attack piece.
> Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces.
Completely dismissing the content because you believe it must be biased is somewhat ironic.
Would you at least then concede that the Wikipedia article is also unreliable and biased?
> One is bordering on an attack piece.
Which one? If you're referring to the piece published by Destiny, what constitutes an "attack piece" if all the claims made are rigorously cited? Would being an attack piece invalidate the claims even if they're demonstrably true?
Not the person you responded to, but this[1] is a very thorough and well-sourced criticism of the person behind the campaign to get Kiwifarms removed from Cloudflare. Sections two and three specifically go into the lies, misrepresentation and bad journalism surrounding Kiwifarms itself if you'd prefer not to read the whole thing.
Probably because due to the nature of the issue even actual unbiased source will likely be perceived as biased. The issue is contentious enough for strong tribes to form on both sides - linking to any source in that situation means taking a risk of making either of them, or often both, hostile to you.
Moreover, if it's about the situation mentioned earlier this year on HN, it's problematic because of its complexity and gravity. Even with just facts and only facts, the change of the narrative (ie. the order you present the facts in) is enough for the same reasonable person to come to opposite conclusions. And that's before accounting for rhetorical devices that aim to manipulate the reader while still not crossing the line and sticking to facts - happily employed by both sides of the discussion in staggering quantities. (Then, of course, there's the other 90% of sources full of lies and fabrications, but let's leave those alone on HN at least...)
In short - it's not worth the hassle unless you're invested in the matter enough to care a lot, and once you are, odds are you won't post an unbiased source anyway. You'll need to do your own research, wade through a metric crapton of some of the worst humanity has to offer, and form your own opinion based on that. I don't think there's a shortcut here.
Go on the kiwifarms website itself and ask yourself if it's okay/legal to be posting this manner of personal information on harassment victims. Make your own determination from the original source. Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.
> Ask yourself if an infrastructure company should be forced against its will to support this.
Come on, that is the literal fucking purpose of infrastructure. Water/sewage doesn't get to refuse to flush my toilet because the content of my stool doesn't meet their nutritional expectations.
That Wikipedia article is full of unverifiable bullshit, and I think you know it.
> I'd never believed that sending someone a pizza would qualify as an act of violence
It doesn't unless you interpret every instance of adversity as an attempt on your life.
Nobody trying to kill anybody sends a pizza, unless the intent is to induce poisoning or choking.
> [Wikipedia] Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her
"Leaked" sounds so much worse than the truth of the photos being found on a 2257-compliant commercial porn site, which Keffals willingly worked as a onetime model for under a 4-letter pseudonym. To say they were "leaked" is being intentionally dishonest. They were available for sale, by the studio that took them. Users shared the preview images that were publicly posted, because nobody involved felt they were worth paying for.
Don't take my word for it; anyone can see for themselves-- they're helpfully posted in her KF thread, if the site is even up anymore.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms