Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Antipodean fruit growers 3 - Is the Kiwi a Dodo or a Phoenix?

833 replies

Bosky · 26/05/2023 03:34

Continuation thread from Antipodean fruit growers 2 - Canary in the internet coal mine
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632616-antipodean-fruit-growers-2-canary-in-the-internet-coal-mine

Front row seat on the seemingly eternal battle between Jersh (aka Suzi Quatro's Fat Nan) and his Merry Band of Farmers against the Transpowered Forces of Internet Censorship.

1st Thread - Antipodean fruit grower statement
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4620584-antipodean-fruit-grower-statement

OP posts:
Thread gallery
60
UtopiaPlanitia · 01/04/2025 00:15

Fruityful · 31/03/2025 21:56

Says I "know" they don't ban people for it. Two sentences later admits that they ban whole subreddits and users for "transphobia" which by their definitions includes the horror of "misgendering".

And I don't agree that the posting of memes or documenting of sexual crimes of trans people makes Kiwifarms "unsafe" which was what you implied. Safest site on the Internet - only place remaining you can speak your mind without getting into trouble.

Anyway, I'm happy with my opinions and I don't really think you're convincing anybody else so I'm wrapping this up.

In more interesting news, an anonymous benefactor has taken on representing KiwiFarms against Ofcom. And it appears to have been sent to a few Congressional committees, too! Time will tell if anything comes of that.

Edited

Ta for the update Fruityful 👍

And, I remain, as ever, impressed by Jersh's dogged determination.

Pixiedust1234 · 01/04/2025 22:26

In more interesting news, an anonymous benefactor has taken on representing KiwiFarms against Ofcom. And it appears to have been sent to a few Congressional committees, too! Time will tell if anything comes of that.

Thanks for that interesting update!

NicCageisnotNickCave · 02/04/2025 11:38

Christinapple · 31/03/2025 11:22

What you're describing is similar to what is already planned. However anyone who verifies their age will have this logged along with their porn activity (and oh boy, just imagine if a hacker got hold of that data. Remember Ashley Madison breach of 2015?), which means a lot of adults are just going to use a VPN even though can can verify.

"sites like Reddit that have abuse content"

It's funny how some here try to pretend kiwifarms is a nice safe site which reddit has "abuse". Possibly some just don't like reddit because the users there are dominantly non-gender-critical?

So you are pro pornography then, Chris?

NicCageisnotNickCave · 02/04/2025 11:43

Chuckling to myself at just a how awful it would be for powerful men to have their porn consumption habits made public al la Ashley Madison.

if you don’t want the world to know you wank over abuse images, maybe you just shouldn’t wank over abuse images, eh?

Christinapple · 02/04/2025 11:59

NicCageisnotNickCave · 02/04/2025 11:43

Chuckling to myself at just a how awful it would be for powerful men to have their porn consumption habits made public al la Ashley Madison.

if you don’t want the world to know you wank over abuse images, maybe you just shouldn’t wank over abuse images, eh?

And that's why it will be big business for VPNs soon, as it avoids all the risks with age verification.

There are risks with VPNs/TOR too, of course. Nothing at all is blocked on there. The UK ISPs already (unrelated to the Online Harm Bill, they already do this) block a lot of illegal porn/abuse and high-risk sites including those infected with malware, terrorism etc. So if the Online Harm Bill was passed "to make the internet safer" and people just start using TOR etc to look at normal consensual adult porn then the Gov has only increased harm for everyone.

"So you are pro pornography then, Chris?"

Nice manipulation attempt, just pointing out the flaws of the Online Harm Bill from a more technical view.

Fruityful · 02/04/2025 13:03

The goal with Age Verification would be to prevent kids going on porn sites. And the mechanism would be to make mainstream porn sites implement Age Verification controls to gatekeep their content. This would cover a lot of the porn that is out there and make it easier to go after the now marginalised sites that didn't implement Age Verification. Typically because they hosted more markedly illegal content. So this is a win-win.

Does that meet the goals of people who want to eliminate all the porn? No, but it would be a major improvement as kids are most at risk from porn and who also don't have the legal rights to "make their own decision."

What is the problem with the approach to Age Verification above? That we are not able to trust either the providers or the state not to abuse de-anonymising access to the sites. And yes, there may be sentiment here that people don't care if a porn user has their viewing habits disclosed but the reality is that if mainstream sites are de-anonymising people that creates a major push towards non-mainstream sites that don't do age verification, undermining the whole thing.

Fortunately there is a solution that already exists in terms of the technology, it just needs backing. An audited Third Party provides a service C which accepts proof that someone is 18+. When a user A contacts porn site B, they are redirected to the Third Party service C which provides them a token verifying they're valid. They then return to porn site B and present the token and gain access without ever revealing anything personal about themselves to B.

This is how a lot of online authentication already works.

So you can instigate Age Verification on mainstream porn sites without pushing people to non-compliant and more extreme porn sites and without the government trying to piggy back on this to also lock out, I don't know, GC forums like the Farms, or whatever.

You'll also note, as an aside, that none of the above directly involves VPNs or TOR. That discussion can be placed aside.

Christinapple · 02/04/2025 14:30

Fruityful · 02/04/2025 13:03

The goal with Age Verification would be to prevent kids going on porn sites. And the mechanism would be to make mainstream porn sites implement Age Verification controls to gatekeep their content. This would cover a lot of the porn that is out there and make it easier to go after the now marginalised sites that didn't implement Age Verification. Typically because they hosted more markedly illegal content. So this is a win-win.

Does that meet the goals of people who want to eliminate all the porn? No, but it would be a major improvement as kids are most at risk from porn and who also don't have the legal rights to "make their own decision."

What is the problem with the approach to Age Verification above? That we are not able to trust either the providers or the state not to abuse de-anonymising access to the sites. And yes, there may be sentiment here that people don't care if a porn user has their viewing habits disclosed but the reality is that if mainstream sites are de-anonymising people that creates a major push towards non-mainstream sites that don't do age verification, undermining the whole thing.

Fortunately there is a solution that already exists in terms of the technology, it just needs backing. An audited Third Party provides a service C which accepts proof that someone is 18+. When a user A contacts porn site B, they are redirected to the Third Party service C which provides them a token verifying they're valid. They then return to porn site B and present the token and gain access without ever revealing anything personal about themselves to B.

This is how a lot of online authentication already works.

So you can instigate Age Verification on mainstream porn sites without pushing people to non-compliant and more extreme porn sites and without the government trying to piggy back on this to also lock out, I don't know, GC forums like the Farms, or whatever.

You'll also note, as an aside, that none of the above directly involves VPNs or TOR. That discussion can be placed aside.

Young people know a lot more about the internet than the middle-aged boomer politicians who wrote up the Online Safety Bill, including what VPNs are. Using a VPN doesn't even involve any tech know-how as there are browsers with built-in VPNs etc.

No porn site can be forced to comply with age verification either (some have said they won't), and unless they are hosting illegal porn there is nothing the UK can do other than ask ISPs to block them (which can be circumvented by VPN). I don't know what you mean by "go after" as while the FBI and other big LE agencies have the power to shut down sites they will only do this for CP sites or terrorism sites etc. Not for regular porn sites hosting legal adult content.

"That discussion [TOR, VPN] can be placed aside."

No it can't. TOR and VPNs aren't going anywhere and their use will skyrocket as soon as age verification begins.

And another risk btw, free VPNs (browser plug-ins or browsers with a built-in VPN etc) are terrible for privacy and likely will sell your info. They are free for a reason which is why premium ones are recommended. As young people may not have a card to pay for a premium VPN subscription they will probably be using the free ones.

Fruityful · 02/04/2025 16:31

@Christinapple You haven't really understood most of what I wrote.

BordoisAgain · 02/04/2025 16:43

Like middle aged boomers didn't invent the www 🙄

Christinapple · 02/04/2025 23:16

Fruityful · 02/04/2025 16:31

@Christinapple You haven't really understood most of what I wrote.

I don't think you do tbh.

btw, even if kiwifarms doesn't have porn on it (I don't know) the Online Safety Bill covers more than just porn and there is no way kiwifarms would be in the clear from it. I understand it has already been blocked by UK ISPs in the interests of safety indepently of the Safety Bill.

Some of the stuff I've seen on here could even come under the Safety Bill.

Lark1ane · 02/04/2025 23:49

BordoisAgain · 02/04/2025 16:43

Like middle aged boomers didn't invent the www 🙄

Exactly.
Yoofsplaining VPNs etc, to those of us around from the days of ARPANET onwards gets a bit tedious after the first decade or so.

ArabeIIaScott · 03/04/2025 07:07

'As young people may not have a card to pay for a premium VPN subscription they will probably be using the free ones.'

Young people? Do you mean children?

Fruityful · 03/04/2025 08:35

Lark1ane · 02/04/2025 23:49

Exactly.
Yoofsplaining VPNs etc, to those of us around from the days of ARPANET onwards gets a bit tedious after the first decade or so.

"Yoofsplaining". Yes, love it. Great term for when someone half my age starts trying to explain tech like VPNs to me. Kids these days struggle with file systems because they just use phones that save everything to its own automatically assigned locations which most of them never see. I think tech understanding on average is actually going down.

@Christinapple
"btw, even if kiwifarms doesn't have porn on it (I don't know)"
You mean you've never even been on the site? Well it doesn't. Null has made it pretty clear that the site is not for NSFW content. Not porn, anyway. In fact if you did visit you'd find a lot of the userbase is actively condemning of "coomers".

"the Online Safety Bill covers more than just porn and there is no way kiwifarms would be in the clear from it"

And for those of us who don't outsource our judgement to the government, we value being able to read uncensored information about the trans movement etc without being censored. But lets examine this btw. The Online Safety Bill guidance can be found here:
Online Safety Act: explainer - GOV.UK

Firstly it says that sites publishing pornographic content must implement age filters. Well the site doesn't host porn and you think Age Verification is unviable anyway (least ways you've argued against my proposals) so lets take this one off the table. Lets see the rest:

  • encouraging or assisting serious self-harm
  • cyberflashing
  • sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm
  • threatening communications
  • intimate image abuse
  • epilepsy trolling

The Farms doesn't engage in the above. In fact, some users have gotten a lot of support and advice when they've been in bad places. I can in fairness think of an instance when someone's nudes were published. Null did take them down. But in any case it's not my job to say the Farms is perfect, only to correct misinformation. There's a lot of content that some people would prefer isn't on the site to be sure, but it's information they've put out in public and has been archived. For example, I'm quite sure Liz-Fong Jones would prefer his "consent accident" tweet could be buried in history but the Farm's remember. In any case, it's not a site where someone will post private images of their ex- for revenge which is what the above was written for. And I'll especially call out the "threatening communications" piece because another rule of the Farms is you don't touch the cows. I.e. the Farms is about documenting and laughing at people. Not direct interaction.

Lets go into the other parts of the act:

  • child sexual abuse
  • controlling or coercive behaviour
  • extreme sexual violence
  • extreme pornography
  • fraud
  • racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
  • inciting violence
  • illegal immigration and people smuggling
  • promoting or facilitating suicide
  • intimate image abuse
  • selling illegal drugs or weapons
  • sexual exploitation
  • terrorism

The Farms is, with rare exceptions by choice, anonymous. So half of the above are just non-viable to begin with. You can find documentation and discussion of any of the above on there, but not the stuff itself. I guess if you interpret the odd reply of "KYS" as promoting suicide but then you know you're twisting things in that case. And I discussed how "fedposting" is called out upthread.

The closest you could come to classing the Farms under the Online Safety Act would be on one of the "incitement" offences but that's really just people expressing their opinions on various groups or people. Null has made it clear that "KiwiFarms is not your personal army" when people have attempted to rally other users to some cause.

Oh, and this bit:
"I understand it has already been blocked by UK ISPs in the interests of safety indepently of the Safety Bill."

Well, independently is the key word there - i.e. the government hasn't placed it on its list of blocked sites. I know at least one ISP (a mobile one) did block it, but another mobile ISP hasn't and my home ISP doesn't. There's a lot of misinformation about the Farms and that led certain people at the top to block it or deny it service. You can read more about this. On the Farms. ;)

General comment: Given I've been correcting a bunch of misinformation in this thread and sharing updates, I could come across as being wholly a defender of the Farms. To be clear, there are some absolutely horrible sentiments and views expressed on there. But also great ones. That's the nature of Free Speech. It's a rambunctious place where you are expected to be able to handle contrary views and handle mockery. Mockery being what it was started for.

Christinapple · 03/04/2025 09:03

kiwifarms is a hate site that doxxes and makes violent threats. Targets are often LGBT people and minorities.

teawamutu · 03/04/2025 09:11

Christinapple · 03/04/2025 09:03

kiwifarms is a hate site that doxxes and makes violent threats. Targets are often LGBT people and minorities.

Supply actual proof of violent threats on the site or withdraw the allegation.

Fruityful · 03/04/2025 10:21

Christinapple · 03/04/2025 09:03

kiwifarms is a hate site that doxxes and makes violent threats. Targets are often LGBT people and minorities.

You've self-admittedly never even been there, fwiw.

Please define "hate site". Do people express hate on there? Sure. Often. Alongside expressing a lot of other things. It's a Free Speech site. Do they archive public information, yes. You may call that "Doxxing". I would not. Violent threats? No. And if there were they would be removed as you've already been told twice, at least.

Is it your contention that sites should be banned if people there express negative opinions of others or groups?

The real issue isn't whether or not you think KiwiFarms contains views that you think are good or bad. The issue is whether the State should be allowed to determine what views can be expressed. Relevant here would be views on the trans lobby.

NecessaryScene · 03/04/2025 10:53

Supply actual proof of violent threats on the site or withdraw the allegation.

If we were talking Bluesky on the other hand - that's a place truly full of violent threats.

https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem

They're clearly poles apart - that sort of thing would not be remotely tolerated on KF.

Yet it's the sort of people that think Bluesky is somehow better than X/Twitter who claim KF is a "hate site". Classic DARVO...

Fruityful · 03/04/2025 11:23

NecessaryScene · 03/04/2025 10:53

Supply actual proof of violent threats on the site or withdraw the allegation.

If we were talking Bluesky on the other hand - that's a place truly full of violent threats.

https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem

They're clearly poles apart - that sort of thing would not be remotely tolerated on KF.

Yet it's the sort of people that think Bluesky is somehow better than X/Twitter who claim KF is a "hate site". Classic DARVO...

I don't know how true or not true this is, but I saw someone try to promote Bluesky on the grounds that 'Musk had cracked down on porn on Twitter so Bluesky was now a better place to find it.'

But this is sort of on-topic and sort of off. The interesting thing is how many sites people like to categorise as "Right Wing" (though the Farms really is apolitical) are getting more and more anti-porn. They often approach it from a POV of 'it's bad for the consumer' first over 'it's bad for the people in it', but still it's very noticeable to me.

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 03/04/2025 18:28

teawamutu · 03/04/2025 09:11

Supply actual proof of violent threats on the site or withdraw the allegation.

If chris told me my eyes were blue id have to go and check

teawamutu · 03/04/2025 19:00

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 03/04/2025 18:28

If chris told me my eyes were blue id have to go and check

Oh, I know. Just making the point for the lurkers.

nothingcomestonothing · 03/04/2025 21:24

Christinapple · 03/04/2025 09:03

kiwifarms is a hate site that doxxes and makes violent threats. Targets are often LGBT people and minorities.

You've been warned before Marg, Jersh had a legal defence fund these days and is capable of issuing suit to those who make false statements about the farms.

I note that you seem very sure about what is and isn't present, in a place you've never been.

Grammarnut · 04/04/2025 23:25

landOFconfusion · 26/05/2023 08:39

Welcome to Mumsnet. A forum where the users advocate for neo-Nazis to be provided with platforms to spread their messages of hate. 🤦‍♀️

I said neo-Nazis should not be forced underground. I like my enemies where I can see them, thanks, LoC. I suspect you are one of my enemies and I can see you very well indeed.

Grammarnut · 04/04/2025 23:27

nothingcomestonothing · 03/04/2025 21:24

You've been warned before Marg, Jersh had a legal defence fund these days and is capable of issuing suit to those who make false statements about the farms.

I note that you seem very sure about what is and isn't present, in a place you've never been.

Christinapple knows everything according to Christinapple.
Updated for spelling.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/04/2025 15:14

Josh Moon spoke about this yesterday as well as various other TRA related stuff on his Mad At the Internet podcast which he broadcasts live on Twitter/X on Friday evenings. News of several usual suspects. Warning, it’s not for the faint hearted! Also available on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/7DvQVqcOL0NGQfYzTospNN?si=jS6iMptgSy2ylA0GUjzL6w

Christinapple · 05/04/2025 15:46

teawamutu · 03/04/2025 09:11

Supply actual proof of violent threats on the site or withdraw the allegation.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/

"in this case the imminent and emergency threat to human life which continues to escalate causes us to take this action."

CloudFlare and numerous ISPs (this includes in Britain, and it isn't because of the Online Harms Safety Bill) have blocked kiwifarms due to hate, stalking, threats of violence, telling people to kill themselves etc.

Indians, black people and Muslims seem to be targeted heavily as well as gay and trans people.

Blocking Kiwifarms

We have blocked Kiwifarms. Visitors to any of the Kiwifarms sites that use any of Cloudflare's services will see a Cloudflare block page and a link to this post.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kiwifarms-blocked/