Didn't Trump directly say "we shall march to the capital"?
If we are going for the stochastic terrorism angle I don't know where to draw the line, as anything could incite some unhinged lunatic. Look at the 200+ school shootings in the US as an example.
I have seen more attempts to get a group of people do something against Kiwifarms than I have seen on that site to do something to other people. They just have horrible opinions and are grossly offensive. Again, I've only only read probably 0.01% of the content on that site so this isn't an objective fact.
There was another comment about SSN/Credit score and PII. I think that is a legitimate line of criticism against Kiwifarms and I would expect them to get shutdown for breaking GDPR and other PII laws. I expect this is actually illegal (or should be?).
If people think it is acceptable for them to go down due to their nasty comments then please let's get rid of YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and only allow comments that have been approved by human monitoring system like in China. I'm not being sarcastic, these sites are much worse for a far greater number of people than Kiwifarms.
> I'm not being sarcastic, these sites are much worse for a far greater number of people than Kiwifarms.
Entirely seriously in reply: yes, they are a very big problem. Just because something is mainstream doesn't mean it's not incitement. A particular author for The Times had her views cited by at least two famous mass shooters in their manifesto. But the fight has to be fought at the margins, against the most extreme examples first.
> If we are going for the stochastic terrorism angle I don't know where to draw the line, as anything could incite some unhinged lunatic.
Not exactly. It's "dehumanization": constantly hearing/reading that some group of people are inferior and/or dangerous makes it much easier to commit crimes against them. There's a whole literature of study into this from people asking "how did the holocaust happen", eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt
> Look at the 200+ school shootings in the US as an example.
This is a US-specific problem and has US-specific problems. There are particular forms of US politics that are (a) incitement to violence and (b) entirely "mainstream" and "legitimate". That's why the US has a mass shooting problem over and above countries with comparable levels of other crime or gun ownership.
> But the fight has to be fought at the margins, against the most extreme examples first.
This is getting off topic but I disagree with this. Trump's comments and right wing news incited an insurrection. I think "fighting at the margins" is probably moot and really we should be tackling this where it broadly affects everyone. Isn't that how most policy and social phenomena are dealt with?
> we should be tackling this where it broadly affects everyone.
Can you cite an example of what you mean? There's nothing being espoused that affects "everyone" unless you're excluding all persons who don't meet your criteria for personhood. Opposed viewpoints are relative extremes to each other, so measuring by majorities is how this typically get addressed in society. Legislation isn't a benevolent, objective, or unbiased action.
KF is a fringe platform of marginal(ized) views. So was the Daily Stormr. Will no one rid us of these turbulent priests?[1] (It got some disagree-votes, but thanks for getting the point.)
I probably should have said broadly affects people* rather than "everyone".
For example, the lack of moderation on Facebook has probably been a factor in thousands or tens of thousands of suicides. Just from the fact there are a billion+ Facebook users and people are horrible to each other.
There's a case at the moment in the UK of a 14 year old girl who killed herself over abuse over social media (mainly Facebook).
Since I can't edit, here's a source for Moderates in US politics "(1) being a large proportion of the public, (2) having views that are not simply random or incoherent, and (3) appearing to be central to electoral change, as they are highly responsive to candidate ideology, voting against extreme candidates." Seems to support "the fight is in the margins" rather than change being organic, rational, or benevolent.
On social suicides, is moderation more or less a factor than the dehumanization caused by over-broad content policies on large social forums (ie- the attrition of personal communities like early tumblr and livejournal after being consumed by large companies who might try to balance the societal cost of some people dying against opex for moderation, for instance). It seems related to what happens to prisons and with zero tolerance in schools- the costs of litigation and liability driving perverse outcomes in populations due to intolerance of real difference or diversity.
It’s unlikely the GDPR applies to a US company. And in the US it’s hard to get “facts” removed (otherwise people could remove their bad credit scores by claiming it as PII against the credit bureaus themselves).
GDPR applies to any European citizen's data, anywhere in the world. It will apply to a US company too. The fines will be on worldwide revenue.
This is probably a bad example in this context though as the people being talked about on Kiwiforums are not "customers" of the Kiwifarms "company" so GDPR probably doesn't cover them.
GDPR doesn't mean you have to scrub someone from your database, it means you can only keep information if you have a legitimate need. I'm sure credit bureaus can come up with enough bureaucracy that there is a legitimate need.
If we are going for the stochastic terrorism angle I don't know where to draw the line, as anything could incite some unhinged lunatic. Look at the 200+ school shootings in the US as an example.
I have seen more attempts to get a group of people do something against Kiwifarms than I have seen on that site to do something to other people. They just have horrible opinions and are grossly offensive. Again, I've only only read probably 0.01% of the content on that site so this isn't an objective fact.
There was another comment about SSN/Credit score and PII. I think that is a legitimate line of criticism against Kiwifarms and I would expect them to get shutdown for breaking GDPR and other PII laws. I expect this is actually illegal (or should be?).
If people think it is acceptable for them to go down due to their nasty comments then please let's get rid of YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and only allow comments that have been approved by human monitoring system like in China. I'm not being sarcastic, these sites are much worse for a far greater number of people than Kiwifarms.