Antipodean fruit grower statement

[nothingcomestonothing]

The antipodean fruit growers site is down. A statement from the owner reads in part:

What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where [redacted by me as would be against MN talk guidelines] while normal people are not allowed to even discuss it.

The mob has already planned subsequent targets. Should we stay down, they will then attack 'gender critical' communities - especially those ran by and for women. No place can exist online which criticizes [redacted], and nothing would excite them more than this power and domination struggle being inflicted on a female space instead.

Posted for info.

That's a crucial point, I think.

What has stopped women from doing this? I'm guessing money?

It would be something I'd be happy to crowdfund.

I dislike KF, for what its worth. But if we're going to decide there are some websites that dox, harass, ridicule and attack innocent people and should therefore be taken down, then I suspect we should also be looking at Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, etc.

I guess in the publishing analogy, this is the postal service refusing to deliver a publisher's books, or the phone company refusing to deliver incoming calls.

Although again, fortunately this hasn't actually happened in our analogy, but we were seeing the result of the postal service/telecom company getting their systems overloaded.

At some point there is a danger of them declaring themselves unable to handle the hassle of that customer, but that's where we get into relying on the law to (a) compel them to provide service nonetheless, via some sort of "common carrier" rule, and find a way to deal with the hassle, and (b) the law being able to track down those actually causing the disruption.

But if we're going to decide there are some websites that dox, harass, ridicule and attack innocent people and should therefore be taken down, then I suspect we should also be looking at Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Reddit, etc.

But would we not be looking at individual accounts and not the platform as a whole?

There are a few alternatives - I won't list them all here but I'm sure we are probably aware of some of the smaller sites that discuss feminism openly.

The impression I get is that a site that does so is highly likely to be targeted, as Mumsnet frequently is.

By that token you could presumably look at individual posters on KF?

Sorry, that's me replying to you Spartacus, I'm shit at name changes.

At some point there is a danger of them declaring themselves unable to handle the hassle of that customer, but that's where we get into relying on the law to (a) compel them to provide service nonetheless, via some sort of "common carrier" rule, and find a way to deal with the hassle, and (b) the law being able to track down those actually causing the disruption.

No idea about the legal situation - they have apparently (receipt = Wikipedia which is all I'm going to look at) refused to service 'The Daily Stormer' because of its neo-nazi content.

I don’t think it’s luck that he can afford to buy servers - the site is funded by members and the finances are squeaky tight.

Lots of mainstream companies simply take the path of least resistance. They just can’t be arsed with the fuss (or weigh up the finances and decide it’s not worth the bother - seeing as the aim is money making)

Same process as Mumsnet losing advertisers (hence Mumsnet starting their ‘premium’ membership so the site could be funded by users) or Gillian Phillip losing her publisher, because the publisher isn’t ‘obliged’ to keep her.

aka Cancel Culture.

I don’t have the answers but if the choice is a) paedos can be discussed but the trade off is offensive (including misogynistic) language or b) no misogynistic language but also no way to discuss child predators, I will choose ‘a’ every time.

Besides, shutting down certain types of language/banning words doesn’t shut down thoughts or change opinions.
It just shunts them off into darker and darker corners.
Banning misogynistic language won’t do shit towards solving actual misogyny (same as banning the sharing of GC opinions online doesn’t do shit to stop feminists thinking feminist thoughts or organising offline).

Sunlight.

By that token you could presumably look at individual posters on KF?

No, that's not the same thing. I don't think you can compare a site with many accounts with a site with many posters.

Why did you name change by the way?

Besides, shutting down certain types of language/banning words doesn’t shut down thoughts or change opinions.
It just shunts them off into darker and darker corners.
Banning misogynistic language won’t do shit towards solving actual misogyny (same as banning the sharing of GC opinions online doesn’t do shit to stop feminists thinking feminist thoughts or organising offline).

Sunlight.

So this thread and my contributions are shining sunlight then.

I'm good with that!

On that score, I'm off for a while because real-life calls.

Absolutely it’s better to have this conversation out here, openly and freely that not to have it at all!

More speech, rather than enforced silence, is, imo the only way forward.

No idea about the legal situation - they have apparently (receipt = Wikipedia which is all I'm going to look at) refused to service 'The Daily Stormer' because of its neo-nazi content.

You're talking about CloudFlare, not the network connection they've been having trouble with. I would not call CloudFlare a fundamental service provider. You don't need to buy "denial of service protection" from someone to run a server, you can deal with it yourself, albeit at some expense.

You can't realistically do water, gas, electricity, postal delivery or a phone connection yourself. Data connection to the internet does fall into that category. You can't connect yourself to the Internet.

CloudFlare withdrawing service is far less of an issue. It's getting a bit iffy, because they certainly make it easier to run a server. I'm sure they make Mumsnet's life easier. But you can find alternatives.

Them refusing service is less of a big deal than, say, Visa or PayPal removing service. That sort of thing is becoming increasingly common.

I was going to make a shit joke about a thread with a woman hiding under the bench in the park yesterday, but got distracted.

So now I have this pointless new name. Tadaa!

I don't think you can compare a site with many accounts with a site with many posters.

I'm lost now!

Them refusing service is less of a big deal than, say, Visa or PayPal removing service. That sort of thing is becoming increasingly common.

Yes, what we're seeing is people with lots of tech savvy 'gaming' the narrative. This may seem trivial, and I'm sure quite often is trivial, but the implications and possibilities could quickly get far trickier. Look how hard it was for Marion Millar to access a crowdfunder, say, because all the wee internet doodads got threatened if they facilitated it.

At least you're not stuck under this fucking bench.

I'm bad at name changes as well

I once did a few posts in the wrong name and mnhq deleted them for me

The worst bit was that a poster said 'what the hell was that about' and another said 'I didn't see it but a poster named rufus always does 3 posts in a row so it's probably her' 😫

😂

Thanks for the correction - I had oversimplified and missed a layer out!

I agree that denial of ISP is now akin to denial of other utilities.
Presumably most politicians agree, hence all our major political parties having broadband speed/access in their 2019 manifestos.

Yep, that's certainly part of it.

If reasonable debate is shut down on one site then that's only ever going to lead to unreasonable debate taking place on another.

KF has some awful stuff on it but I'm not sure that warrants censoring the whole site. In the same way that I don't think reddit, twitter, etc. which allow similar posts should be shut down either.

Haha! I hadn't noticed. Bet my posts can be spotted a mile off. Also I'm a big fan of the MN grin emoji

I changed my name once. I took a "1" off the end.

Bit traumatic, haven't attempted it again.

No, that's not the same thing. I don't think you can compare a site with many accounts with a site with many posters.

For the comparison not to hold you would have to believe the people who manage Twitter etc at all levels are particularly moral. They are not. They frequently allow behaviour from certain groups that goes against their terms of use.