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.

undark.org/2022/08/15/researchers-ask-does-enforcing-civility-stifle-online-debate/

Recent statement from Cloudflare (found the archive link from the fuzzy fruit farm)

archive.ph/gJXgF#selection-471.0-483.255
excerpt, from a ways down:
This isn't hypothetical. Thousands of times per day we receive calls that we terminate security services based on content that someone reports as offensive. Most of these don’t make news. Most of the time these decisions don’t conflict with our moral views. Yet two times in the past we decided to terminate content from our security services because we found it reprehensible. In 2017, we terminated the neo-Nazi troll site The Daily Stormer. And in 2019, we terminated the conspiracy theory forum 8chan.
In a deeply troubling response, after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights organizations — often citing the language from our own justification back to us.

Yup. Isn't it interesting, like the hurling around of words like 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'kind' borrowed and used with intent to manipulate the gullible. What's that quote? 'Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes'.

That's interesting.

'We also terminate security services for content which is illegal in the United States — where Cloudflare is headquartered. This includes Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) as well as content subject to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). But, otherwise, we believe that cyberattacks are something that everyone should be free of. Even if we fundamentally disagree with the content.'

> after both terminations we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting

This is why the farms cannot ever bend on slurs, and is very reluctant to bend on dox. If you move the bar propping the door, eventually the door slams shut on you. Or as it's more commonly said, if you don't test a right, you don't have that right. Or as it's still more commonly said, "Give an inch, they'll take a yard."

This is the thing. If what is on that site was made public on msm, the entire issue would be over in a heartbeat.

i've listened to most of the Null podcast. And he says a similar sort of thing to a lot of people. He originally thought it was all about men with gender dysphoria, with a few fetishists on the side. But now he thinks it's the other way round.

A lot of the podcast went over my head, the acronyms, the people they speak about. He comes across as a normal tecky bloke.

The one thing that did strike me is that they are dealing with the worst of humanity in a lot of cases. Dangerous, violent, predatory, nasty people, many of whom are very clever and persuasive. And because of the Internet, they have all met each other virtually, can support one another, and form a cohesive unit.

You can't challenge that kind of community in the way he does without being a) bloody cynical and b) prepared to go toe to toe.

Thank you! 🙏

Interesting article, research and links - thank you.

A lot of food for thought well beyond the discussion in this thread - I won't go in to details because it would derail the topic.

"The one thing that did strike me is that they are dealing with the worst of humanity in a lot of cases. Dangerous, violent, predatory, nasty people, many of whom are very clever and persuasive. And because of the Internet, they have all met each other virtually, can support one another, and form a cohesive unit."

Reminded me of these statements:

Written evidence submitted by British Psychological Society to the Transgender Equality Inquiry

"the Society recommends that the Government give appropriate assistance to transgender people within the criminal justice system; while being extremely cautious of setting law and policy such that some of the most dangerous people in society have greater latitude to offend."

data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Women%20and%20Equalities/Transgender%20Equality/written/19471.html

Written evidence submitted by British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry

"the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this."

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.html

And this research:

Self and Gender: Narcissistic Pathology and Personality Factors in Gender Dysphoric Patients. Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study.
International Journal of Transgenderism - Volume 1, Number 1, July - September 1997

Abstract
This paper presents preliminary results concerning the relationship of self and gender in patients requesting or seriously considering sex change. Specific attention is paid on pathological features in regulatory processes of the self-system as well as on personality factors associated with different types of gender disorders. Based on the results of retrospective analyses a prospective study was designed to identify subtypes of gender dysphoric patients based on a scrupulous psychiatric and psychpathological evaluation. The evaluation procedure consists of (i) clinical interviews, (ii) a structural interview according to concepts of Kernberg, and (iii) a set of self- developed and standardized questionnaires. The results indicate significant psychopathological aspects and narcissistic dysregulation in a substantial proportion of patients. Different subtypes of self- (dys)regulation seem to emerge which are discussed with special reference to differential diagnosis and prognostic factors.

Archive of IJT:
web.archive.org/web/19991012110350/symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0103.htm

Campaigner against Kiwifarms has her address posted on Kiwifarms & is visited by anti-trans activists
twitter.com/keffals/status/1565050152510947330
Hopefully at least some of the readers of this thread can empathise with how terrifying this would be.

If the campaigner's address is in the public domain then what do they expect?

Kiwifarms have done nothing wrong, once again TRAs trying to make a story out of nothing.

They really need to grow up.

That's horrifying, and having seen this person's YouTube videos, they seem to be unhinged.

However this person is nothing to do with KF but a site called d0xbin. In fact posters on that site were telling him to stfu about KF.

I can't post links but if you go to that post in KF, it has links to the info, should you wish to check further.

THE KIWI FARMS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM.
IT DOES NOT CONDONE 'SWATTING' OR ANY FORM OF HARASSMENT.
KEFFALS WANTS THIS THREAD DELETED BECAUSE HE IS A CREEPY WEIRDO.
OUR OFFICIAL STATEMENT IS THIS ENTIRE POST.

This is at the top of the thread about that person. Can’t get any clearer than that.

I could say some people on Mn want to swat me. Wouldn’t make it a)true or b)official MN policy to condone swatting.

If the campaigner's address is in the public domain then what do they expect?
What, like "she was asking for it?!"
Bloody hell.
That's what you're going with?

Mine are more or less the same!

5.11 free speech

1.03.15 Thread content/doxing 1.05.30 SWATing 1.06.40 why Null became interested in Chris Chan and took the site on as a project 1.08 definition of doxing 1.12 how the current broohaha with Keffals took off
1.15 Null’s mum doxing story

1.23 NSFW 😱

2.09.40 Byuu

2.20.51 Julie
2.21.49 Chloe

3.15 behaviours of TW in a wider context

(plus the mumsnet mention that I posted about before)

@Bosky - unsurprisingly I agree with pretty much all you said.

as for recent updates, well, it’s interesting that KF response to the time offline is to create the designated ‘Gender Critical’ board and shunt loads of the discussions on predatory males into one list (whereas before it was more scattered).

Cloudflare response seems good to me thus far.
The following is from Cloudflare’s blog:

The overwhelming majority of Cloudflare's millions of customers use only our security services. Cloudflare made a decision early in our history that we wanted to make security tools as widely available as possible. This meant that we provided many tools for free, or at minimal cost, to best limit the impact and effectiveness of a wide range of cyberattacks. Most of our customers pay us nothing.

Giving everyone the ability to sign up for our services online also reflects our view that cyberattacks not only should not be used for silencing vulnerable groups, but are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing problematic content online. We believe cyberattacks, in any form, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The decision to provide security tools so widely has meant that we've had to think carefully about when, or if, we ever terminate access to those services. We recognized that we needed to think through what the effect of a termination would be, and whether there was any way to set standards that could be applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory way, consistent with human rights principles.

This is true not just for the content where a complaint may be filed
but also for the precedent the takedown sets. Our conclusion — informed by all of the many conversations we have had and the thoughtful discussion in the broader community — is that voluntarily terminating access to services that protect against cyberattack is not the correct approach.

Avoiding an abuse of power

Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. Both in the physical world and online, that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities.

Today, more than 20 percent of the web uses Cloudflare's security services. When considering our policies we need to be mindful of the impact we have and precedent we set for the Internet as a whole. Terminating security services for content that our team personally feels is disgusting and immoral would be the popular choice. But, in the long term, such choices make it more difficult to protect content that supports oppressed and marginalized voices against attacks.

IT DOES NOT CONDONE 'SWATTING' OR ANY FORM OF HARASSMENT.
KEFFALS WANTS THIS THREAD DELETED BECAUSE HE IS A CREEPY WEIRDO.
Am I correct in thinking Keffals is a trans woman?
If so, we don't condone any form of harrassment and then immediately after deliberately says he - kind of makes a mockery of the whole statement really, shows it up as a load of bullshit 😂

Yes, they don't subscribe to gender identity ideology Ganymede, they don't think exactly make a secret of it.

Not using compelled speech isn’t condoning harassment,

So are we harrassing KiwiFarms here?

they don't think exactly make a secret of it.

I know that, just saying it shows the so called statement up as a load of nonsense 😁

That depends how you define "harassment". Many people don't define it as correctly using the grammar terms for a person's sex.

correctly using the grammar terms for a person's sex.

While talking about someone who isn't even present...

Harrassment does require some actual interaction. Not just writing about someone.

Maybe you could reach defamation, if there was something untrue being written?

Harrassment does require some actual interaction. Not just writing about someone.
Of course it can be harrassment if people are "just writing about someone!" 😕

No.

talking about someone isn’t harassment. If it was, internet forums wouldn’t be able to exist, unless the discussion was purely about animals or objects.

and using the male sexed pronoun to refer to a male person isn’t harassment either.

repeatedly calling a male transitioner ‘he’ to his face after being asked not to might constitute harassment but a) that’s not what’s happening in the circumstances we are currently discussing and b)it’s going to depend on the law in the jurisdiction where you are located and then ‘intent’ will likely need to be proven.

in the uk gender critical beliefs are officially ‘Worthy of Respect in a Democratic Society’ and if your belief that humans cannot change sex is legal than you certainly shouldn’t be compelled to say that you believe the opposite.

"talking about someone isn’t harassment*
That's missing the point a bit isn't, it?!
Talking about someone isn't harassment,

• you've massively minimised and narrowed it down now to " talking about someone" - you can't surely believe that all forms of writing/ talking about someone isn't harassment. Of course some will be.