Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Do you have any links to those forum posts?


view as:

go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc

> go on kf and click a few, there's a ton on there. or just look at their _entire forum_ about a trans-woman named christine chandler, in which they document not only her address, but even have photos of her at walmart, game stores, etc

Chris Chan has been a notorious and divisive figure online long before the existence of the Kiwi Farms. They are arguably one of the most well-known Internet personalities.

Merely referring to them as "a trans woman" throws away a massive amount of context why Kiwi Farms (and many other sites) seems so obsessed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs


that is such a circular argument. they are a microcelebrity who has spent the majority of their life being intensely tracked and harassed by a small but dedicated community, the majority of which is on kf.

The original name of kiwifarms was "CWCki", and CWC are the initials of their first victim. The entire premise of the site was harassment of a severely autistic person to trigger "funny" reactions. It's beyond gross.

What does the person being famous before the site existing have to do with harassment?

Also, what does labeling the person as trans (or anything else) have to do with harassment?


May I ask what your point or intent of these questions is?

To understand why the poster is asserting irrelevant materials. Is it their confusion or are they being purposefully obtuse. May I ask why you asked me?

Of course not. Linking to them here would probably be considered doxxing by HN's rules and get me banned here.

These threads exist. They're easy to find. I've seen them before and they're absolutely abhorrent.

Another commenter said they checked themselves

> Edit: I have now accessed the site and confirm a culture of doxxing, with 3 of the 10 opening posts proudly having "doxx" sections.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327204

> Edit: I went through the hassle of figuring out how to get on that website. I can confirm 2 or the five pages I checked had doxx info on them and agree that kiwifarms does not seem to have a policy against doxxing and in fact has a culture that promotes it. This is bad.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37327642

Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else. I really wish I could understand the mentality of thinking otherwise. Are you really so hung up on "thinking for yourself" that you automatically assume anything said by the mainstream media is a lie? Skepticism is great and I highly encourage it, but automatic knee-jerk rejection is not skepticism, it's basically setting you up for falling for reverse psychology. Just because the mainstream media says one thing while fringe reporters say something else does not automatically mean the mainstream is lying.


> Anyone who claims that KiwiFarms is not a site for harassing and doxxing people has done zero research and is trusting some lying "news" source that tells them something else.

Two notes:

1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.

2. "Does more than zero research" is a very high bar that few meet. The number of people I've found on the internet who cite primary sources, government stats/papers and scientific papers is less than 0% to the nearest tenth of a percent. While its true that sometimes research can take half an hour or more, so often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).

Ideally everyone would do research and cite real sources, in practice less than one in a thousand do.


>1. Kiwifarms, by volume, based on the sampling of posts I've read today, is first and foremost a site for talking about, insulting and mocking people. The harassing and doxxing do not seem to have focus and it would require a relatively minor change (banning and removing doxxing) in order for it to claim innocence of harassment and doxxing.

That' not going to happen with its current owner.

It's been suggested that doxxing be banned before. But the owner of the site, Joshua Moon (aka null) does NOT want to do that: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/why-host-dox.130254/

(I only mention his real name because he's public about his identity, and he's sometimes referred to in the news by either name).

Here is another ocassion, the admin of the site, outright said he was ok with users posting stolen financial information, such as Social Security Numbers and Credit cards. Source: https://archive.is/0fOcS .

There are many examples of private financial information being posted on the site.


[flagged]

Actually they were +60% overrepresented, I just didn't want to derail the thread by bringing up my actual findings.

Legal | privacy