cope however you wish, but you can't stop progress. you'll be on the wrong side of history. just like your bigot grandparents were when they enslaved People of Color.
Those posts were for entirely unrelated matters and have nothing to do with keffals. This is such an obvious reach, but seeing that you're probably confused, I'll explain it for you. Trolling someone's tumblr page with entirely legal speech doesn't equal condoning harassment. Threatening someone, posting their personal information with the intent to cause harm and continuing to contact someone after being told no is harassment and illegal. Mocking someone online isn't harassment. Even posting their address isn't technically harassment or illegal, although yes, it can be very much in the grey area.
That other post re: CWC was aimed at stupid unfunny people who wanted to chase clout by mocking CWC and sharing their exploits with the rest of the Internet. This type of behavior had long hit the law of diminishing returns by 2014 and anyone who attempted to recreate the classic era of CWC trolling was rightly ridiculed for pulling attention seeking stunts.
I wasn't talking about keffals. I just reposted part of it, because they didn't want to click the reddit link
Organizing the sending of unwanted messages can be harassment in the eyes of the law. There's examples of it.
People in the usa have been sued for asking their users to send a target messages. The owner of the Daily Stormer has lost multiple lawsuits because they did that:
Thank you for writing this. Wikipedia is indeed corrupt and it’s discouraging to see some millennials buying into the fake free and open myth. Another page that they squat on is the Franklin scandal page where they claim that it’s a carefully crafted hoax in spite of piles of evidence and a book by journalist Nick Bryant.
Edit: I think you’re a good writer! If the piece is emotionally charged, well isn’t the job of the writer to make us care about important issues? Tweak the article a little bit if you want but you don’t need to rewrite it.
Yugioh is popular amongst neurodivergent people, of course you'd mock it given that you tried to police a disabled persons' speech. Why are you being so ableist? actual oppression
The way the kiwifarms has managed to stay online is incredible. You've actually had a harder time than sites like Stormfront, etc.
I suspect that "offensive sites" will only have payment processing when FedNow becomes a thing. You will never see a 1st amendment appreciator have control of a major bank or credit card ever again. Internet backbones will have to be forced to be regulated as utilities. Ironically we now need government intervention because its the citizens themselves who don't want freedom. Usually this happens right before people lose those freedoms.
Stormfront and similar sites probably have an easier time staying online because the fed is either using them as inadvertant honeypots or outright running them behind the scenes.
well if it's legal in the US then it must be moral and good. just like how the US enslaved People of Color, and treated women like chattel for thousands of years.
Irrelevant whataboutism. You claimed that JCM and his forum have broken the law. Provide evidence of this claim, based on either US law or the jurisdictions relevant to the Farms operation. We will wait.
I'm not clicking any link to anything associated with keffals or a "safe" archive site with a fucking .fo domain. Do you think I am stupid? Provide a link, to the posts, where they exist on the farms. You claim your evidence is from the farms, so provide a link to it on the farms.
Hey man can you help out by reporting this essay to substack as being written by a terrorist trying to stir up violence against transpeople in tech he's obsessed with? I just emailed them his wikipedia article and I assume that should be enough to get him banned and exile him back under his stinky little rock.
A phrase that I first heard during GamerGate, when it was commonly used to describe the approach taken by what are broadly and pejoratively referred to as Social Justice Warriors, is: 'No bad tactics, only bad targets.'
What that means in practice is that once you are on the radar of this nest of sociopaths, there is very little that they won't stoop to, in order to not only to silence you, but to break your life beyond all hope of repair. This will include resorting to the same tactics that they claim are used against themselves, usually without providing any proof. They think nothing of going after the family members of their targets, in fact loved ones are often there first point of attack. It is disgusting; in many cases, if not criminal and conspiratorial, then certainly close to it.
Standing up to these people, and the corporate and technological infrastructure that they have buttressed around themselves, is going to require a more united front. It can't just be Kiwi Farm here, a guy in a data centre there, a sympathetic lawyer somewhere over there. Nobody in isolation can withstand indefinitely the pressure that these people are willing and able to bring to bear. If an avaricious cabal of gleefully cruel individuals can put aside their contempt for one another in pursuit of a common malevolent goal, then what does it say about the people who stand against them if they cannot unify into a coherent opposition?
This article contains a lot of valuable information expressed clearly, but I fear is a bit aimless in its central thesis. Too often it feels like a hit piece about specific people, rather than a call to action about a broader problem. The detailed information about what actors like Jones are doing seems necessary and I do not advocate for editing it out, but if the article is to function as a series of broader points about how the Internet's infrastructure is crumbling, then more time needs to be spent setting up the thesis before each example.
"Here is what's wrong, here is an example of it in practice. Here is another thing that's wrong, here is another example of it in practice."
It has also often been observed that this author comes across better and more affable in audio rather than in writing, and that is also represented here. I realize that when you feel aggressed at every turn it may feel as if a hostile or accusatory tone toward perceived enemies is warranted, but I'm not sure this is appropriate for an article that is a call to action, or which attempts to convince the reader that your position deserves defense, or even that your specific position is irrelevant and the Internet itself is at stake.
As one example among many in this article, this feels like a bit of a tacky outburst: "At least Bruno’s executioners got paid; Bilorv’s 38,828 edits were made to Wikipedia for free purely for the self-satisfaction and ego." Bilorv's statement that Wikipedia would record the Earth as flat ought to be able to stand for itself. He is representative of the broader harmful attitudes harbored by Wikipedia, and not necessarily a target himself. Making him out to be yet another enemy in this aside detracts from the core statement.
Many of the actions described in this article are self-evidently bad. Those committing the actions don't necessarily need to be described as "lunatics," "vicious," or "a menace," though of course it is cathartic to use such phrasing. The author may even consider this article to already be showing a great deal of restraint after what he has dealt with for years, but it is still important to step back, take a breath, and consider how it all may come across to the layperson. Many people could be turned off by "attack language" regarding someone who they have never heard of prior to this article. Their harmful actions ought to be enough to speak for themselves (such as re-phrasing a rape accusation as a "consent accident").
What follows are other notes I have made while reading this article.
---
"This would begin the long trend of transgender activists saying 'ignore the bad things on Kiwi Farms, they’re made up' with the punchline being that we’d end up proven right over time, and with damage done that could have been mitigated if we were trusted sooner."
This statement sounds too much like the forum is an activist group or organized harassment campaign, rather than primarily a loose collection of inconvenient information. I would reword this to "the inevitable conclusion being that the information on the forum would be proven correct over time, and with damage done that could have been mitigated if it had been trusted sooner." Information is neutral; if it is true, then no amount of personal biases can weaken it.
---
"He claims to have resigned in 2019, after the Google Walkout protests he helped organize. Insiders reported that Google does not give severances, unless you are asked to quit. This indicates that Fong-Jones was likely paid to leave, as opposed to his claims he resigned."
This does not necessarily follow. The implication seems to be "why would anyone quit without severance," but that's not the same as evidence or statements demonstrating it. It's possible that crucial information was left out, such as "he claims to have resigned with severance in 2019" or "he spent the following months without seeking further employment, indicating some amount of severance that would've enabled this lifestyle."
---
"Anita Sarkeesian of GamerGate fame"
Given that the other people referenced in this section are spoken of in reference to their jobs or positions, it might be more appropriate to attribute Feminist Frequency to Sarkeesian (possibly still alongside GamerGate).
---
"Ellen Pao was an interim CEO for Reddit in 2015. She was the head of the company when it decided to ban r/FatPeopleHate. Reddit traditionally had a policy of tolerating free speech, even when upsetting."
In supporting the thesis that Ellen was used to perform a variety of unpopular tasks, this could be better worded as "...decided to ban controversial subreddits such as r/FatPeopleHate. Prior to this, Reddit traditionally..." unless in fact this was the only subreddit that she banned.
---
"Not a single policy Ellen Pao implemented was ever reversed by Reddit’s corporate, and they have since been compounded and expanded upon."
"They" is ambiguous here, seeming to possibly refer to Reddit's corporate. "These policies" might work better.
---
"There is a sentiment I want to overcome: that the Kiwi Farms—as only a moderate sized, niche community that is often times mean-spirited—does not effectively act as a canary in the coal mine for the broader Internet."
This feels like a thesis statement for this section, but may be confusing for the reader without elaborating on what the canary is indicating. Based on earlier arguments, one might assume "we are the canary for fraud and inconvenient truths which later come to light," but what seems intended is "we are the canary for how effective censorship has become."
---
"Liz Fong-Jones and his friends in academia would hope to persuade the IEEE and IETF make the entire world smaller"
"To" make the entire world smaller.
---
"and these studies are being made off where Liz Fong-Jones is currently failing to bring down the Kiwi Farms."
"Made off" feels like odd phrasing. "These studies are springboarded from Jones's current efforts?" "These studies are being developed based on Jones's current efforts, which have proved ineffectual thus far, but indeed threaten to succeed at any time?"
---
"Sony did end up tailoring her outfits to be less revealing, and this decision prompted outrage."
Be careful with statements like these, as if they aren't quite accurate they can weaken your trustworthiness in the many other factual statements made in this article. To my knowledge, the developer Shift Up made these changes, and has never said that Sony forced their hand. I would also emphasize that the failure of this petition to accomplish anything is only the latest in a long line of similar failures.
---
"Path’s CTO is Corey Barnhill (now August Heart), a pedophile. Corey is on record admitting to watching a 9-year-old girl be sodomized."
Even as enticing as it may feel to make such statements, it feels as if this comes out of nowhere, or at least requires additional context. Statements like these, even when factual, smack the casual reader in the face and pull them out of the broader thesis being developed. For example, you might only hint at why Corey wants you removed from the internet, and allow the citation to speak for itself if the reader desires further context. "Path's CTO is Corey Barnhill (now August Heart). Corey is yet another individual with significant skeletons in his digital closet which he desires to erase from the internet, including several alarming statements made (X) years ago regarding minors.²⁷"
---
"They do not have cohesive goals and frequently allow irrelevant personal issues divide them."
"To" divide them.
---
"They are too afraid of what will said about them in the media, when the media is already a demonstrably poisoned network of people who can’t wait to strangle the life out of them."
What will "be" said about them in the media.
---
There are other aspects of this article which could use work, but I didn't want to belabor the point further; suffice to say, for more clear, directed, public-facing articles like these, one or more editing/redrafting passes could be helpful. I hope this criticism can be taken in the helpful spirit in which it is intended.
Like there has to be more than just supporting "free speech" startups. This has to be solved at the legislative level or nothing will be solved at all. We can't rely on private corporations to solve this issue.
Supportive critique: I think more should have been done to highlight that this is an institution-wide issue, of which the Fong-Jones/KF engagement is a visible and emblematic example.
As it stands the first third of the article is devoted to "Fong-Jones did this to me, and then this, and then Fong-Jones did this to me using wikipedia" Before another significant name is mentioned. I understand the urge to tell the story in full which doesn't get accurately portrayed elsewhere, but if this coalition idea of yours is to be enticing you can't afford to give the impression that you're asking for help prosecuting a personal slapfight.
There's material in the article for this but the devotion to chronological narrative order creates a mental distance between "Fong-Jones manufactures consensus and then points to that consensus to force otherwise neutral entities to side with him against me" and "Fong-Jones lectures at Cambridge on how to do this and creates a company which promises to do this as a service, with global venture capital support and endorsements from a who's-who list of information industry royalty", when it would probably be more broadly appealing to draw this link early and often in the article.
There is a sentiment I want to overcome: that the Kiwi Farms—as only a moderate sized, niche community that is often times mean-spirited—does not effectively act as a canary in the coal mine for the broader Internet. I will demonstrate that the lessons being learned from this meddling are testing a broader strategy applicable to all."
He then goes on to elaborate, so give it another chance.
Counterframing to your point. The details are necessary to detail the level of obsession these wrong person in the correct positions can inflict on censorship.
It would be better consumed by wider audiences with a bulleted timeline sticking to the facts. Like a pitch meeting or a subject that needs to be presented to executives in 10 minutes when you may want two hours.
There's a more than thankless aspect to all the crap Josh takes with maintaining the Farms, when considering the level of crap he deals with and even when he can provide the receipts when warning others that its ignored.
WOOP WOOP opinion time! Sorry if I raped you (and you didn't consent to there being 69 comments so you've already been raped)
If i didn't kill myself over internet retardation then other people just need to quit being such big fucking pussies. People need to stop fucking blaming cyberbullying and online harassment for their mental illness and the fact their parents neglect them.
If your parents are allowing you to be called faggot over and over until you want to kill yourself then maybe they are not doing a good job at protecting you.
To the parents; if the world is "oh so bad" for trans people, then why the fuck you not shielding your kids from a world that will beat them to death and leave their body in a ditch? The internet is not your daycare.
How about all you cyberbullied bitches just toughen the fuck up and stop expecting the world to coddle you? holy fuck.
The world is NOT a safe space. Left-leaning people obviously know this, because it's all they ever cry about... Maybe if you faggots didn't also hate guns, you would be able to defend yourself and feel safe.
And if you want to call me transphobic, it's because you lack perspective and you want brownie points for your retarded virtue signalling. I am a tranny faggot; I also don't push my weird faggot lifestyle onto everyone else and expect them to be okay with it.
Before you say I have internalized whatever-ism, I'm pretty damn proud of myself because I also am not insecure about my faggotry like you insecure woke pussies. My personal identity is not so fucking fragile that i need to literally cut my writs because someone called me "tranny faggot"
it's their right to say that, and they're just words, so why would I give a fuck? I don't wake up every single day hating the fact i'm a tranny faggot.
You SJWs act like everyone trans-person is a broken mess is so insecure in themselves they will literally end their life over seeing words on a screen, this is called projection. You fags wake up every day thinking about killing yourselves is not a trans problem. Everyone thinks about killing themselves, why are you so special?
Also why do so many of us need to have it both ways? The world needs to apparently acknowledge they are trans and needs to be okay with it, while somehow also expecting everyone to dance around and walk on eggshells to also pretend they are not trans?
It's not factually wrong to say I'm biologically a female, nor is it offensive to me, it's a fact. 15 year old me would disagree, because that's the crap you tell us in schools when we come out and you pat us on the back for being "so brave"
Why the fuck are people offended by medical science? You want trans-people to be acknowledged and get fucking help, right? So then stop calling people white-racist-cisgendered-straight-male scum or whatever makes you feel better about your daddy issues when they acknowledge it's a mental illness, because it is.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it should be treated as such, because that person deserves to feel happy. Whether that person wants to live as the opposite gender or remain the assigned sex is their freedom.
People refusing to accept "muh pronouns" are not the ones preying on my illness, trying to sell me some fucking Indian-doctor surgery that's going to mutilate me and ruin my life.
I legally couldn't join the military until 18, because I might regret stepping on a grenade (might I add people do this so you fags can dress up like sissies without having your head cut off in the street?) and losing my crotch...
Yet I could hypothetically get a surgery to sew up my pussyhole and be injected with steroids/hormones until my clit becomes a micropenis while in high school? Yeah, sure, that's reasonable.
But who am I kidding? you people don't want kiwifarms taken down because you care about trans-people, you just don't want anybody to see the KGB record list of women you all roofied when you get her guard down by simping hardcore for feminism and telling her how you're such a nice guy who got 6k updootz on your Reddit comment about how much you love communism
I think your more recent comments about Destiny wanting to preserve the status quo because it benefits him can be applied broadly to the "Anti-censorship" types. There's little reason for them to actually want things to improve when complaining about the status quo in of itself has been a much more lucrative enterprise since anti-SJW YouTube days. All of these people want to be perpetual victims and complainers because it makes too much money. Thank you for taking an ideological and principled stance on this issue and for this comprehensive article.
Make more use of this, Jersh. Try harder to get your message out there, this is a very good platform for you.
More receipts than an old Jewish lady's purse!
This random article by some random guy is literally better sourced then the majority of so-called modern 'news' sites. Wtf.
anybody can generate ai websites to fabricate "evidence". this is clearly a smear campaign by a transphobe.
Lmaooooo cope
cope however you wish, but you can't stop progress. you'll be on the wrong side of history. just like your bigot grandparents were when they enslaved People of Color.
Wait, hold on. How long ago do you think the civil war was?
Damn, my grandparents sound based as fuck.
and now they're dead. just like their bigoted ideals and racist culture.
Well, unlike 41% of post-op transgenders, at least my grandparents died old!
Somethings might be missing context or misreprsented, but I don't think it was AI generated
However, kiwifarms has engaged in harassment: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_harassed_people/
>Keffals subreddit
Clown
have direct links to a few of null's posts where he talks about harassment being ok:
https://archive.fo/Quqz1#90%
https://archive.fo/WMrvv
Those posts were for entirely unrelated matters and have nothing to do with keffals. This is such an obvious reach, but seeing that you're probably confused, I'll explain it for you. Trolling someone's tumblr page with entirely legal speech doesn't equal condoning harassment. Threatening someone, posting their personal information with the intent to cause harm and continuing to contact someone after being told no is harassment and illegal. Mocking someone online isn't harassment. Even posting their address isn't technically harassment or illegal, although yes, it can be very much in the grey area.
That other post re: CWC was aimed at stupid unfunny people who wanted to chase clout by mocking CWC and sharing their exploits with the rest of the Internet. This type of behavior had long hit the law of diminishing returns by 2014 and anyone who attempted to recreate the classic era of CWC trolling was rightly ridiculed for pulling attention seeking stunts.
I wasn't talking about keffals. I just reposted part of it, because they didn't want to click the reddit link
Organizing the sending of unwanted messages can be harassment in the eyes of the law. There's examples of it.
People in the usa have been sued for asking their users to send a target messages. The owner of the Daily Stormer has lost multiple lawsuits because they did that:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49003766
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Anglin#Legal_issues
https://youtu.be/Yo1_zQ1iTLs?si=bqjCtdGjvMIS4ci7
I've watched the video before. It doesn't relate to any of the links in the thread, which are all archived threads and posts from null on kiwifarms
I don't care, I just want people to know what the discord grooming community you are from is like.
this is BS. kiwi farms does only archive job.
who says that users of the kiwo farms harasses people is conscious to be a liar and a censor
Thank you for writing this. Wikipedia is indeed corrupt and it’s discouraging to see some millennials buying into the fake free and open myth. Another page that they squat on is the Franklin scandal page where they claim that it’s a carefully crafted hoax in spite of piles of evidence and a book by journalist Nick Bryant.
Edit: I think you’re a good writer! If the piece is emotionally charged, well isn’t the job of the writer to make us care about important issues? Tweak the article a little bit if you want but you don’t need to rewrite it.
This is awesome, apart from Josh knowing what he is talking about he is also a very good writer
it's clearly AI generated.
Clearly you are a retard.
that's the hateful ableism I would expect from transphobe farms worshiper
Let me go through my yu-gi-oh deck of oppression cards... looks like i'm crippled so uh... is it ableism if I call you fucking retarded? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
i mean, i'm just reclaiming the slur that's been used by this by evil racist, patriarchal, and ableist society to OPPRESS ME
i will not stand for this ableism! i am literally shaking... why do you hate us so much? ｡･ﾟﾟ*(>д<)*ﾟﾟ･｡
This is not okay... I earned the disability card so i could say retard on the internet all day long!
you play Yugio, but you're questioning MY mental normativity?
Yugioh is popular amongst neurodivergent people, of course you'd mock it given that you tried to police a disabled persons' speech. Why are you being so ableist? actual oppression
The way the kiwifarms has managed to stay online is incredible. You've actually had a harder time than sites like Stormfront, etc.
I suspect that "offensive sites" will only have payment processing when FedNow becomes a thing. You will never see a 1st amendment appreciator have control of a major bank or credit card ever again. Internet backbones will have to be forced to be regulated as utilities. Ironically we now need government intervention because its the citizens themselves who don't want freedom. Usually this happens right before people lose those freedoms.
Stormfront and similar sites probably have an easier time staying online because the fed is either using them as inadvertant honeypots or outright running them behind the scenes.
Hosted by the FBI servers. Lol.
yup thats true
maybe he should stop breaking the law with his hate forum, then he wouldn't have such a hard time.
Provide proof that there is any US illegal content on the KiwiFarms. We will wait.
well if it's legal in the US then it must be moral and good. just like how the US enslaved People of Color, and treated women like chattel for thousands of years.
Irrelevant whataboutism. You claimed that JCM and his forum have broken the law. Provide evidence of this claim, based on either US law or the jurisdictions relevant to the Farms operation. We will wait.
you have the single-mindedness of a fascist. not surprising you only care about what is technically "legal" and not what is actually right and fair.
Oh, so you can't show any evidence for the claims you made? Lol.
Enjoy prison, stalker!
Fact: The United States has only existed for 247 years
slavery and oppression for 247 years isn't enough for you?
the god emperor has reigned for ten thousand years in the imperium of man
Here's proof the forum harassed people: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_harassed_people/
I'm not clicking any link to anything associated with keffals or a "safe" archive site with a fucking .fo domain. Do you think I am stupid? Provide a link, to the posts, where they exist on the farms. You claim your evidence is from the farms, so provide a link to it on the farms.
Those archive sites are the ones that are used by kiwifarms: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/archival-tools.6561/
Archive.fo is just another domain name for archive.today
Hey man can you help out by reporting this essay to substack as being written by a terrorist trying to stir up violence against transpeople in tech he's obsessed with? I just emailed them his wikipedia article and I assume that should be enough to get him banned and exile him back under his stinky little rock.
I just reported your comment to the FBI for harassment. Glad to be doing my part for online safety!
Agreed. Good citizens must do their part!
Nice show
A phrase that I first heard during GamerGate, when it was commonly used to describe the approach taken by what are broadly and pejoratively referred to as Social Justice Warriors, is: 'No bad tactics, only bad targets.'
What that means in practice is that once you are on the radar of this nest of sociopaths, there is very little that they won't stoop to, in order to not only to silence you, but to break your life beyond all hope of repair. This will include resorting to the same tactics that they claim are used against themselves, usually without providing any proof. They think nothing of going after the family members of their targets, in fact loved ones are often there first point of attack. It is disgusting; in many cases, if not criminal and conspiratorial, then certainly close to it.
Standing up to these people, and the corporate and technological infrastructure that they have buttressed around themselves, is going to require a more united front. It can't just be Kiwi Farm here, a guy in a data centre there, a sympathetic lawyer somewhere over there. Nobody in isolation can withstand indefinitely the pressure that these people are willing and able to bring to bear. If an avaricious cabal of gleefully cruel individuals can put aside their contempt for one another in pursuit of a common malevolent goal, then what does it say about the people who stand against them if they cannot unify into a coherent opposition?
This article contains a lot of valuable information expressed clearly, but I fear is a bit aimless in its central thesis. Too often it feels like a hit piece about specific people, rather than a call to action about a broader problem. The detailed information about what actors like Jones are doing seems necessary and I do not advocate for editing it out, but if the article is to function as a series of broader points about how the Internet's infrastructure is crumbling, then more time needs to be spent setting up the thesis before each example.
"Here is what's wrong, here is an example of it in practice. Here is another thing that's wrong, here is another example of it in practice."
It has also often been observed that this author comes across better and more affable in audio rather than in writing, and that is also represented here. I realize that when you feel aggressed at every turn it may feel as if a hostile or accusatory tone toward perceived enemies is warranted, but I'm not sure this is appropriate for an article that is a call to action, or which attempts to convince the reader that your position deserves defense, or even that your specific position is irrelevant and the Internet itself is at stake.
As one example among many in this article, this feels like a bit of a tacky outburst: "At least Bruno’s executioners got paid; Bilorv’s 38,828 edits were made to Wikipedia for free purely for the self-satisfaction and ego." Bilorv's statement that Wikipedia would record the Earth as flat ought to be able to stand for itself. He is representative of the broader harmful attitudes harbored by Wikipedia, and not necessarily a target himself. Making him out to be yet another enemy in this aside detracts from the core statement.
Many of the actions described in this article are self-evidently bad. Those committing the actions don't necessarily need to be described as "lunatics," "vicious," or "a menace," though of course it is cathartic to use such phrasing. The author may even consider this article to already be showing a great deal of restraint after what he has dealt with for years, but it is still important to step back, take a breath, and consider how it all may come across to the layperson. Many people could be turned off by "attack language" regarding someone who they have never heard of prior to this article. Their harmful actions ought to be enough to speak for themselves (such as re-phrasing a rape accusation as a "consent accident").
What follows are other notes I have made while reading this article.
---
"This would begin the long trend of transgender activists saying 'ignore the bad things on Kiwi Farms, they’re made up' with the punchline being that we’d end up proven right over time, and with damage done that could have been mitigated if we were trusted sooner."
This statement sounds too much like the forum is an activist group or organized harassment campaign, rather than primarily a loose collection of inconvenient information. I would reword this to "the inevitable conclusion being that the information on the forum would be proven correct over time, and with damage done that could have been mitigated if it had been trusted sooner." Information is neutral; if it is true, then no amount of personal biases can weaken it.
---
"He claims to have resigned in 2019, after the Google Walkout protests he helped organize. Insiders reported that Google does not give severances, unless you are asked to quit. This indicates that Fong-Jones was likely paid to leave, as opposed to his claims he resigned."
This does not necessarily follow. The implication seems to be "why would anyone quit without severance," but that's not the same as evidence or statements demonstrating it. It's possible that crucial information was left out, such as "he claims to have resigned with severance in 2019" or "he spent the following months without seeking further employment, indicating some amount of severance that would've enabled this lifestyle."
---
"Anita Sarkeesian of GamerGate fame"
Given that the other people referenced in this section are spoken of in reference to their jobs or positions, it might be more appropriate to attribute Feminist Frequency to Sarkeesian (possibly still alongside GamerGate).
---
"Ellen Pao was an interim CEO for Reddit in 2015. She was the head of the company when it decided to ban r/FatPeopleHate. Reddit traditionally had a policy of tolerating free speech, even when upsetting."
In supporting the thesis that Ellen was used to perform a variety of unpopular tasks, this could be better worded as "...decided to ban controversial subreddits such as r/FatPeopleHate. Prior to this, Reddit traditionally..." unless in fact this was the only subreddit that she banned.
---
"Not a single policy Ellen Pao implemented was ever reversed by Reddit’s corporate, and they have since been compounded and expanded upon."
"They" is ambiguous here, seeming to possibly refer to Reddit's corporate. "These policies" might work better.
---
"There is a sentiment I want to overcome: that the Kiwi Farms—as only a moderate sized, niche community that is often times mean-spirited—does not effectively act as a canary in the coal mine for the broader Internet."
This feels like a thesis statement for this section, but may be confusing for the reader without elaborating on what the canary is indicating. Based on earlier arguments, one might assume "we are the canary for fraud and inconvenient truths which later come to light," but what seems intended is "we are the canary for how effective censorship has become."
---
"Liz Fong-Jones and his friends in academia would hope to persuade the IEEE and IETF make the entire world smaller"
"To" make the entire world smaller.
---
"and these studies are being made off where Liz Fong-Jones is currently failing to bring down the Kiwi Farms."
"Made off" feels like odd phrasing. "These studies are springboarded from Jones's current efforts?" "These studies are being developed based on Jones's current efforts, which have proved ineffectual thus far, but indeed threaten to succeed at any time?"
---
"Sony did end up tailoring her outfits to be less revealing, and this decision prompted outrage."
Be careful with statements like these, as if they aren't quite accurate they can weaken your trustworthiness in the many other factual statements made in this article. To my knowledge, the developer Shift Up made these changes, and has never said that Sony forced their hand. I would also emphasize that the failure of this petition to accomplish anything is only the latest in a long line of similar failures.
---
"Path’s CTO is Corey Barnhill (now August Heart), a pedophile. Corey is on record admitting to watching a 9-year-old girl be sodomized."
Even as enticing as it may feel to make such statements, it feels as if this comes out of nowhere, or at least requires additional context. Statements like these, even when factual, smack the casual reader in the face and pull them out of the broader thesis being developed. For example, you might only hint at why Corey wants you removed from the internet, and allow the citation to speak for itself if the reader desires further context. "Path's CTO is Corey Barnhill (now August Heart). Corey is yet another individual with significant skeletons in his digital closet which he desires to erase from the internet, including several alarming statements made (X) years ago regarding minors.²⁷"
---
"They do not have cohesive goals and frequently allow irrelevant personal issues divide them."
"To" divide them.
---
"They are too afraid of what will said about them in the media, when the media is already a demonstrably poisoned network of people who can’t wait to strangle the life out of them."
What will "be" said about them in the media.
---
There are other aspects of this article which could use work, but I didn't want to belabor the point further; suffice to say, for more clear, directed, public-facing articles like these, one or more editing/redrafting passes could be helpful. I hope this criticism can be taken in the helpful spirit in which it is intended.
I agree with all this copy-editing. I hope Jersh takes your advice and suggestions.
Like there has to be more than just supporting "free speech" startups. This has to be solved at the legislative level or nothing will be solved at all. We can't rely on private corporations to solve this issue.
ratiooo
Please keep writing. Perhaps talk to the Glennster.
Are we referring to The Greenwald?
Supportive critique: I think more should have been done to highlight that this is an institution-wide issue, of which the Fong-Jones/KF engagement is a visible and emblematic example.
As it stands the first third of the article is devoted to "Fong-Jones did this to me, and then this, and then Fong-Jones did this to me using wikipedia" Before another significant name is mentioned. I understand the urge to tell the story in full which doesn't get accurately portrayed elsewhere, but if this coalition idea of yours is to be enticing you can't afford to give the impression that you're asking for help prosecuting a personal slapfight.
There's material in the article for this but the devotion to chronological narrative order creates a mental distance between "Fong-Jones manufactures consensus and then points to that consensus to force otherwise neutral entities to side with him against me" and "Fong-Jones lectures at Cambridge on how to do this and creates a company which promises to do this as a service, with global venture capital support and endorsements from a who's-who list of information industry royalty", when it would probably be more broadly appealing to draw this link early and often in the article.
counterpoint, from the essay:
"#DropKiwiFarms: The Censors are Taking Notes
There is a sentiment I want to overcome: that the Kiwi Farms—as only a moderate sized, niche community that is often times mean-spirited—does not effectively act as a canary in the coal mine for the broader Internet. I will demonstrate that the lessons being learned from this meddling are testing a broader strategy applicable to all."
He then goes on to elaborate, so give it another chance.
Counterframing to your point. The details are necessary to detail the level of obsession these wrong person in the correct positions can inflict on censorship.
It would be better consumed by wider audiences with a bulleted timeline sticking to the facts. Like a pitch meeting or a subject that needs to be presented to executives in 10 minutes when you may want two hours.
There's a more than thankless aspect to all the crap Josh takes with maintaining the Farms, when considering the level of crap he deals with and even when he can provide the receipts when warning others that its ignored.
Beyond frustrating. Keep up the good fight, Josh.
This article was incredibly well written and informed me of many obstacles that remain in the way of true online freedom. Thanks jersh
WOOP WOOP opinion time! Sorry if I raped you (and you didn't consent to there being 69 comments so you've already been raped)
If i didn't kill myself over internet retardation then other people just need to quit being such big fucking pussies. People need to stop fucking blaming cyberbullying and online harassment for their mental illness and the fact their parents neglect them.
If your parents are allowing you to be called faggot over and over until you want to kill yourself then maybe they are not doing a good job at protecting you.
To the parents; if the world is "oh so bad" for trans people, then why the fuck you not shielding your kids from a world that will beat them to death and leave their body in a ditch? The internet is not your daycare.
How about all you cyberbullied bitches just toughen the fuck up and stop expecting the world to coddle you? holy fuck.
The world is NOT a safe space. Left-leaning people obviously know this, because it's all they ever cry about... Maybe if you faggots didn't also hate guns, you would be able to defend yourself and feel safe.
And if you want to call me transphobic, it's because you lack perspective and you want brownie points for your retarded virtue signalling. I am a tranny faggot; I also don't push my weird faggot lifestyle onto everyone else and expect them to be okay with it.
Before you say I have internalized whatever-ism, I'm pretty damn proud of myself because I also am not insecure about my faggotry like you insecure woke pussies. My personal identity is not so fucking fragile that i need to literally cut my writs because someone called me "tranny faggot"
it's their right to say that, and they're just words, so why would I give a fuck? I don't wake up every single day hating the fact i'm a tranny faggot.
You SJWs act like everyone trans-person is a broken mess is so insecure in themselves they will literally end their life over seeing words on a screen, this is called projection. You fags wake up every day thinking about killing yourselves is not a trans problem. Everyone thinks about killing themselves, why are you so special?
Also why do so many of us need to have it both ways? The world needs to apparently acknowledge they are trans and needs to be okay with it, while somehow also expecting everyone to dance around and walk on eggshells to also pretend they are not trans?
It's not factually wrong to say I'm biologically a female, nor is it offensive to me, it's a fact. 15 year old me would disagree, because that's the crap you tell us in schools when we come out and you pat us on the back for being "so brave"
Why the fuck are people offended by medical science? You want trans-people to be acknowledged and get fucking help, right? So then stop calling people white-racist-cisgendered-straight-male scum or whatever makes you feel better about your daddy issues when they acknowledge it's a mental illness, because it is.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, it should be treated as such, because that person deserves to feel happy. Whether that person wants to live as the opposite gender or remain the assigned sex is their freedom.
People refusing to accept "muh pronouns" are not the ones preying on my illness, trying to sell me some fucking Indian-doctor surgery that's going to mutilate me and ruin my life.
I legally couldn't join the military until 18, because I might regret stepping on a grenade (might I add people do this so you fags can dress up like sissies without having your head cut off in the street?) and losing my crotch...
Yet I could hypothetically get a surgery to sew up my pussyhole and be injected with steroids/hormones until my clit becomes a micropenis while in high school? Yeah, sure, that's reasonable.
But who am I kidding? you people don't want kiwifarms taken down because you care about trans-people, you just don't want anybody to see the KGB record list of women you all roofied when you get her guard down by simping hardcore for feminism and telling her how you're such a nice guy who got 6k updootz on your Reddit comment about how much you love communism
blocklanders rise up
I think your more recent comments about Destiny wanting to preserve the status quo because it benefits him can be applied broadly to the "Anti-censorship" types. There's little reason for them to actually want things to improve when complaining about the status quo in of itself has been a much more lucrative enterprise since anti-SJW YouTube days. All of these people want to be perpetual victims and complainers because it makes too much money. Thank you for taking an ideological and principled stance on this issue and for this comprehensive article.
great analisys josh