I'm curious what the function of publishing a targets home address, personal phone number, place of employment, and so on is supposed to be if they don't condone harassment. One might suspect that the rule against harrassment is just paper-thin ass-covering. Officially they'll also tell you they just collate and archive freely available information, while for example publishing and micro-analyzing the hacked bank statements of a streamer they don't like, with enthusiastic support from the moderators.
It's annoying that they're trying to remove your comment via downvoting.
It's amazing to me that some people are so determined to defend KF when it appears that the best defense they have is: "no suicides have been definitively linked to KF." I know their public reason is all about censorship etc, but I'd like to know what their private reason really is.
I'm downvoting the comment due to the same principle that makes me downvote EVERY comment about astroturfing hackernews. Because it's literally against the guidelines of this website, as any real hackernews denizen would know.
They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
It's not that we want to defend KF, it's that we want to have a discussion on the merits of the issue not the reputation of the participants.
KF is ultimately an archive site. It "keeps receipts" in their words. If storing someone's posts is bad, is archive.org bad for performing the same function?
If KF supports harassment campaigns then make that case, but they seem not to. I've seen more harassment and threats on Twitter (literally!) than on KF threads.
If suicide is your metric, are you also against storing the words of people you find objectionable in case they commit suicide when discovered? What if a neo-nazi was recorded being a nazi and killed himself, is that bad?
I personally support storing the speech (because it's censorship not to allow it) and I support legal charges for people who go beyond - let the courts sort out the fine lines.
I doubt this. Hackernews still has a disproportionately large number of principled libertarians like me. I've personally gone on kiwifarms twice, both times triggered by a big hackernews story.
You know what would counter disinformation? Links to analysis of kiwifarms with methodology and citations. E.g. what proportion of threads (from, say, a random sample of 20) contain doxxing on the first page?
Edit: I've now done this. Looks like about 25%. Damn, that's high.
No one is going to link to victim dox in a public HN thread. It would get our accounts banned and also further victimizes these people who were harassed by the site. Thank you for looking at the site for yourself.
Reasonable people disagreeing is not evidence of astroturfing or disinformation. It is possible for people to just disagree with you. There is no organized conspiracy against your viewpoint.
They linked this thread on the kiwifarms website so people are coming here from the site. One of them even called out my posting as particularly objectionable to their point of view. I would link it so you can see, but I think that would break HN rules because of the doxing materials on the site.
You can view it with a spectrogram, audio which has been lossily encoded will have a telltale cutoff in the high frequencies. The lossier the encoding, the lower the frequency ceiling will be.
Another thing to look for is deleted or very flat energy between harmonics. Reducing bit rate in inter harmonic regions is most of what's meant by 'psychoacoustics.'
I imagine low pass filtering depends a bit on which compression you're using.
None of these tricks will work for detecting GAN compressed audio, though.
When CloudFlare suspended Nulls account, the only noted collateral damage was that a New Zealand based Neo-Nazi group named Action Zealandia were also knocked offline, if anyone was wondering what kind of customers his host was courting. Today the host goes by 1776 Solutions LLC, but it was originally incorporated with the much less subtle name Final Solutions LLC.
That’s more action than Twitter has taken against the Taliban accounts active on Twitter. They even issued a statement [0] about it, months after banning the President of the United States:
> Twitter gave the Taliban a green light to keep tweeting while noting the social media site would “continue to proactively enforce” its rules on the “glorification of violence, platform manipulation and spam.”
DDoS-Guard are in the strange position of being seen as a legitimate service within Russia, used by banks and telecoms and newspapers, but are almost exclusively used for illegal or unsavory purposes outside of Russia. They are well aware of what their global clientele are up to, but I assume they would rather avoid their domestic clients becoming too aware of it.
I don't have a strong opinion about them but i'd be surprised if they were really independent of the Russian state. Too much commercial autonomy can be a liability in some places; it goes to your head and next thing you know you're falling out of a window.
Of course that’s always one criteria. But at it’s core it just comes down to certain customer relationships being deeply unprofitable and not worth continuing.
Strangely enough Russia is quite a transphobic country itself where people like Keffals are thrown into prison so I'm surprised they would take action against something they blame the West for
