New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
IncogNET filed an official complaint against HE with the Attorney General of Washington State
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yeah, reading the earlier stuff now and you and few others already covered that. @Dvo keeps going on about broadband from a personal residential understanding rather than broader legal understanding.
Even if fiber isn't a "wire", the definition of the word is open to something that is "wirelike" which a fiber strand arguably would fit under. Besides, it isn't like they ran a single fiber optic all the way directly to us without converting it to an electric signal on a wire or connect to a switch somewhere in between.
PS I saw some DAC's in their rack which are absolutely a wire. Case closed
Yeah, it was a funny troll argument that would start a funny debate but pointless. I don't know why he keeps going on about the AT&T stuff because they have nothing to do with it. The bill states what they mean by broadband and that is what the AG should use. But its pointless to go around in circles. Just going to wait for news.
I'm going on what a national carrier defines based on how they view it. I'm sure their legal team was in some way, involved.
If you want to be a freedom provider that fights for the rights of your clients, that's you're prerogative. If you want ports dropped as a result, sounds good! I'm sure the carrier selection at your location gives you the ability to simply turn up what, 2-3 carriers? Well.. when they all blacklist you.. then what? Do you still keep the client... or?
You're assuming the AG is going to do something. If the snowflakes had their way to get the prefixes filtered, what makes you think when they change their focus, the AG is going to want to deal with all the drama? We're literally talking about a sub $1k/mo account that no carrier wants anything to do with yet people still keep thinking they have the solution, yet keep getting nulled.
KF was already on your network, indirectly and you're already dealing with the BS, for free.
Read between the lines: whether it was about the trans people, or straight people, it would still be illegal.
What makes it illegal is the harassment, and the fact that he can't stop himself from "commenting" on people who are allegedly trying to get the site down by exposing information pertaining to them even more, and thereby making even more people aware of them, and essentially telling a bunch of people of dubious mental health that they are to blame.
Do you understand that none of that is legal?
You as a website operator have to obey the laws and remove information upon receipt of a legal notice, he, in fact -- does not.
He tries to weasel his way out of it, and he mocks people for even trying to.
I could go on forever, but there's no point in doing so if you are not a KF user, as you clearly don't know the site. If you did, you would know that he is in fact doing all those things described, and 99.9% of the times, he's aware of most complaints and the consequences, but chooses to pretend that it's legal to ignore them.
I'm expecting legal was involved, too.
The carrier selection at my location? You mean the Westin in Seattle? I sure hope we have more than 2-3 options there because we've already contracted with more than 3 so I might have been scammed! If you meant in US Bank Spokane, that is where we pick up HE. There's probably only 3 or 4 others at the moment in that facility to grab. We also have circuits to MT and CO. Luckily for us, our primary location was undeserved by existing carriers so we had to build out and pick them up at existing larger telco hotels.
I'm not assuming the AG will do anything. I'm assuming the AG will actually do nothing, or find a way to do nothing. Maybe I will be surprised. Either way, I am very interested in seeing further clarification on Washington State's NN from an authoritative source as that matters to our business interests. Most things in (US) law are hinged on edge cases like this: neo-nazi's marching in some public space, westboro baptist church at veteran's funerals, etc. This isn't a personal issue wrt KF for me or my company, and all of our communications with HE has been cordial and professional (on our end) and I actually think their domestic network is better than it gets credit for in online circles. I would still recommend them from a purely technical:cost POV.
However, if a requirement of the service agreement is to give into unannounced censorship without reasoning on a whim sans notice, then I don't highly value that upstream's quality of service or reliability going forward. I've asked for guidance on what things were violated and/or what other content may also violate this same policy but was told they cannot tell us that. If they simply wanted to block KF, and they told us it was specifically that, I would at least have a concrete stance from them and guidance moving forward. It is possible that they will come back with better guidance and clarification once the work week starts up again.
We haven't had a single complaint, and I've never dealt with KF (and still haven't) directly. If clarifying some stuff directly from the source in support of a customer I do value is "BS", then I guess I'm going to be dealing with BS.
Legally speaking; acting like a French maid doesn't actually change the facts, e.g. you were in fact aware of the issues surrounding the said website and you chose to be ignorant about it and passing the buck.
In other words, nothing is as simple as "i haven't personally received any emails about it, so therefore it must be ok". Ignorance is bliss, but in my opinion, we will all see it end in HE's favor, and likely see KF delve even further into illegality.
It's important that big carriers for the internet stay neutral in conflicts. I see this as a war between sides that have financial and political benefit.
In wars critical infrastructure is targeted as it's a hotspot, similar to burning bridges as seen in recent wars.
The legal system in place is where complaints should be filed by whomever and a judge should apply the law. Parties involving infrastructure have one job, keep it running. Anyone trying to shape their world above the law should either join politics, use the legal system and any other official channels, or be in prison.
As humanity we should be above this for a great project where we connect the entire world. Destabilizing infrastructure is a big threat to everyone
I'm talking about carriers that haven't dropped them already. Pickings are going to be slim! Assuming they are/will stick around and/or other carriers don't take the same stance on other questionable content moving forward.
Then we'll both be surprised if the AG actually does something.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what HE did was right or in anyway support what they did. However I do think there may be a disconnect between you (and your customer) looking at it from a freedom of speech/censorship point of view and how maybe, HE's looking at it from the fallout in other business contracts they have, point of view. I can understand why other providers would part ways with sites like that and why carriers drop them.
Regardless of our views on the matter, unless the AG actually does something, even define what is and what isn't, nothing will actually change and that's the sad thing. I'm not looking at this as a "I'm right" point of view, it's more of a "what will they argue if they actually get called out for it". Do I believe the OP is stretching the law in question a little, yes. Armchair lawyering or not, it's some interesting points to consider when you stretch it the other way. It's one thing to comment on the censorship points of the thread then ignore the business points, but then again, that would take your customer admitting that on-boarding the client that they did, wasn't the best choice considering the fallout and history it has with other providers and carriers, then assuming the same wasn't going to happen, yet it did. If the business model is hosting questionable content on, lets say, a misconception of state law, it kinda throws a kink into it doesn't it?
For all we know, as we sit here and debate the topic, who's to say HE hasn't already had their legal team review the laws and advice them what to and what not to do. Which leads me to...
I wouldn't expect any clarification from HE, why admit anything when they don't have to. To be frank, it's almost like they knew what to do and/or say. I'm sure they were advised by "somebody". But then again, who knows, maybe you'll get an email!
I call it BS when a carrier drops prefixes and you have to deal with it in any capacity.
&
Imho. that's a delusional view of a matter. You and I have an opinion or dislike some things.
Doxing some random people, posting their stolen private pictures on forums, etc ... isn't opinion. It's an act.
Pretty much agree with all of what you said. There are a few carriers that are okay with them, even historically proven, but yeah generally not much left. I think it is 2? It's why I view them as the canary. Despite all this, I'm sure they'll stay up on tor anyways (oddly enough, heavily transited by HE again lol).
No disconnect. I expect HE made this solely based on a (greater) business decision but no harm in asking them to clarify. This way I can at least have guidance as to what the next "business decision" might be and which of my customers it may potentially affect. Likewise, as a business decision on our end we have to re-evaluate where HE stands in our mix if they can't even give us any level of professional communication on matters like this. They could easily ask myself/networking team to sign NDAs and loop us in, but we just got absolutely nothing.
Regardless, the hope is that something like NN in WA state is a step towards common carrier stuff being cemented legally given how integral it is to everything these days. The unfortunate reality, as you said, is that WA's NN is likely just for biased political points and when faced with an actual challenge--which will be KF or something in that realm--it's likely to end up at 'nothing will happen'. I'm a realist, and agree with you there. I really do hope I am proven wrong, though.
Fair enough. This is just something I'm donating time to as an individual supporter of an open internet. KF may well be the wrong litmus test for this, but I am confident the walls of censorship will continue to close in around us and we'll be provided a much more palatable victim than KF.
For example, the same people who got the KF .today domain revoked are now targeting archive.today, a very popular webpage archiving platform because they have archived pages of kiwifarms.
This is about control. These people want anything wiped off the internet that shows them in a negative light, most of which is their own words and actions.
All PII/dox should be removed from Kiwi Farms. Stalking is not legal in Washington:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46.110
If only we had some organization that dealt with enforcement of laws. It sure would be nice to see these people arrested for their crimes, instead of having them covered up by HE.
I know of at least one case where law enforcements used KF to build a case against a lolcow.
I think if Kiwi Farms continues to grow and Josh keeps acting like a cult leader (instead of a site administrator) and continuing to make these stronger radicalization calls to his audience, we could see federal charges. Similar to Proud Boys.
Afaik, Josh is pretty much on the run out in Eastern Europe or something because he stopped wanting to keep up with US lawsuits, laws, and politics.
100%
How has DoxBin been operating forever and still is online today?
How is this different than those databroker people lookup sites? Those are nasty companies whose takedown process is slow to non-existent.
Personally I just want clear lines in the sand to be drawn and explained in detail by the transit providers without some super vague reply about it just being a violation of TOS/AUP.
So DoxBin is OK but KF isn't? - Both have PII info posted.
So TPB is okay but KF isn't? - Both have leaked OnlyFans content.
So 4Chan is okay but KF/8Chan isn't? - All 3 have mentally unhinged people posting crazy stuff. All 3 are considered to be the "asshole of the internet".
I would like it explained in detail from registrars, datacenters, transit providers what sets those apart. Is it the level of moderation? If so, what level of moderation is required to stay online and stay in the good graces of the providers?
I'd say right now the exact line in the sand is unclear and its totally just up to how the provider is "feeling" that day. This is the part I don't like. I want clear rules and examples outlined and I want those rules to be followed by the providers and not just purely based on feelings and personal biases like how it seems to operate now. It hard for smaller providers and websites who allow user generated content to operate based on the feelings and biases of large tech companies (like HE) rather than hard set clearly explained rules.
"You broke our AUP/TOS" is the most generic BS response ever unless its followed up with a detailed explanation.
I understand they legally don't have to provide a detailed response or have detailed rules, but I personally hate that they don't.
So I would just like to point out that TPB doesn’t host anything, it hosts links to torrent but doesn’t host anything itself. KF hosts the images and files directly and as such are a distributor.
Understood and agreed. That then begs the question, if KF switched to torrents or 3rd party files hosts, would that then make it OK?
Involving yourself and being aware of your user's activities, not acting on legal complaints but instead ridiculing the person by posting the said complaints publicly, and still pretending to be operating legally are only some of the things which stop you from being an ESP like LET, for example, and making you into a shady illegal website.
It's interesting how @MannDude first said he didn't really know, and how it was probably something related to Twitch and streamers, to now saying it's about the people who don't want anything negative published about themselves online, quite explicitly taking Josh's side. (It's really not like that for most of them, it's a question of being cyberstalked).
Whether it's right or wrong to do so, I believe you will eventually realize that it's not a censorship issue. For it to be a censorship issue, you would have to be persecuted simply for having a different opinion.
Criminals are not entitled to being taken for court first, and we've seen this before with booters, markets, etc. They are either blocked or seized before having been found illegal in a court of law, because they themselves made themselves illegal.
There is a way for Josh to operate in the US, on the clearnet, but he is not interested in operating legally. The whole censorship thing is just a shtick, and nothing else.
If it weren't a shtick, explain to me how the nudes go behind the login form? What law is there that says that you can arbitrarily decide how to comply with a DMCA notice any other way than by removing the said information?
As an ESP, you have to act upon every complaint, and your users can counter them. If YouTube has to do it, then we have to do it too.
I never commented on that concept so I’m unsure why you quoted my thing. I’m simply there is a big difference between straight up hosting and hosting basically just big lists of links. I personally think KF is a sh*tty site and I think this is the wrong case to be taken for anti-censorship just due to the nature of the site. But at the same time I understand the fundamental principle they are trying to uphold, which is internet providers should be neutral entities and not basically judge jury and executioner for who may reside on the internet.
PS: And also it might backfire against KF simply due to the best defense for HE being to prove that what they where doing wasn’t legal assuming that they do fall under this law.
Are you a real person?
This thread is presently the most respectable in terms of how users are talking to each other, that I've seen to date which borders on relating to that website. Keep up the good work.
First of all, I didn't know what KF is until I see too much noice about it here.
To me it's a weird gossiping site but any local bookstore or gas station should have just as much in magazine section. While the language is less "direct", those magazine certainly implying just the same.
How calling KF's users/admin criminal while the court says not any better than what KF is doing?
How is "hide behind login" different from what people discuss behind closed doors? Or does the opposition think that should be illegal as well?
Since Internet is considered basic right as of now. Why are somes defend HE doing this? Which affects more than just KF but a bunch of IncogNet's customers as well. People react with much passion when others' electric, water is cut; how is this okay!?
PS: Using Tor is criminal-liked, doing business with shady companies, therefore criminal. Seriously, WHAT? By that logic we all are since every major companies are dodging taxes, and there are gangs behind local pizza joints, imbiss,... How can one live in a city and not have had participated in one of the chain?
This guy truly persist doing gossip about weirdo people on internet
Yeah, its fun to see, mostly because no one is doing bad research
For those interested, there is some good discussion and debate going on over at Twitter stemming off from the original Tweet:
I figured it'd get dozen or so likes, a handful of retweets at best. Didn't realize it'd turn into a large scale debate.
Lot of good discussion on what the role of a transit provider is, if the Net Neutrality laws of Washington even apply, what "is" a common carrier, etc.
To be clear, this isn't a lawsuit. Anyone can fill out an online form and submit a complaint to the Attorney General, this wasn't something that was done with lawyers or anything. Regardless of the outcome of all of this or your own personal opinions, what Hurricane Electric did was still in bad business practice. We're not large enough to have any weight or pull but they're certainly not a transit provider we'll consider doing direct business with moving forward as we grow.
I've had a couple email exchanges with the EFF as well, just sort of curious what they have to say on the matter and if they can offer any guidance, advice or assistance. They more or less said they're keeping an eye on the situation and linked me to something I was already aware of and read previously: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/10/internet-not-facebook-why-infrastructure-providers-should-stay-out-content
We'll see.
And let's all remember that all of this started with an autistic kid winning a Sonic contest.
Imagine being a marketing/social media staff for any other major carrier right now. All you would have to do is come out and tweet "Unlike HE, we at carrier support free speech and legal content! blah blah blah".
Best case, you keep your word and get business from incognet, crunchbits, and many others alike.
Worst case, the angry mob of offended people start saying your carrier company is X-ophobic. But they are consumers of residential ISPs and they have no control over who their upstreams are.
After a couple days or weeks of said statement, it would have blown over anyway. I'd take the gamble.
Either way, Incognet has already scored a lot of points in this thread from people who want an upstanding hosting company. Do the haters not realise Incognet would be perfectly fine hosting "i-love-trans.com" or "kiwifarms-is-dumb.com" as well? I'm sure they don't discriminate.
Oh boy. Kiwi farms are back.
“I-love-trans.com” is a site about spreading love, don’t see the issue in that.
“Kiwifarms-is-dumb.com” would be a website talking about a company, not about mass stalking and harassing individuals.
Neither of those examples are relevant.
Realistically this thread is just Kiwi Farms users like kait, sillycat, you, etc, vs non-Kiwi Farms users.
In the real world, average people on the street outside of the hosting/IT (there is an overlap of audience between LET and KF) world see it as a benefit that sites with toxic content be taken down, rather than arguing about free speech technicalities.
Also, I think it’s the more profitable decision for a business to remove Kiwi Farms from its network.
Cloudflare, HE, etc > IncogNET or Crunchbits.
You don’t want to attract high-risk customers to your hosting service that hate KYC, like @tinyweasel or @treesmokah - these are the types of people that use Kiwi Farms.