Not just immoral and reprehensible, the campaigns of targeted harassment they undertake limit the victims' speech. If you care about people being able to freely express themselves, today is a good day. I don't know why the free speech defenders miss this (I do know).
And the hosts. Server owners have rights not to host content they don't want to host, for any reason at all. Business rights which 'that side' conveniently forgets about when it suits them.
Yea - It's something I've seen brought up recently that really helped me think about these issues. Yes, annoying people or just insulting them is valid speech that I wouldn't necessarily trust a government to decide on the legality of, but It's important to balance between multiple speakers - just because someone is the loudest or most notable doesn't mean they automatically should have their right to speak be upheld the most. In this case, and in many others, the "free speech martyr" is explicitly engaged in speech meant to suppress others' ability to speak and express themselves.
That doesn't seem like something tech companies should be making judgements on. They are because the government is totally failing here. But if these sites are so dangerous that they need to be immediately shut down, the government should be giving a directive to do it.
It's a bit strange that the burden of proof is on people contesting allegations about an anonymous person. As far as I can tell the original claim has no proof whatsoever.
That said, after digging into this a bit more it seems that the most credible proof he didn't commit suicide is that the U.S. State Department has no record of it. They allegedly killed themselves in June but according to government records no US citizen died of suicide in Japan in June.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...
2. The original claim, being that Near commited suicide due to Kiwi Farm, was documented in the link two comments up.
As another commenter said, the government records state that no US citizen died at all in Japan in June 2021. This is of course a bit ridiculous given that 50,000+ people live there and 10-12 people die per 1000 people per month in Japan. This means that around 500 US citizens should have died in Japan that month. Obviously, the US government doesn't have to account for literally all its citizens dying for any cause anywhere, just the important ones.
> 2. The original claim, being that Near commited suicide due to Kiwi Farm, was documented in the link two comments up.
>
> As another commenter said, the government records state that no US citizen died at all in Japan in June 2021. This is of course a bit ridiculous given that 50,000+ people live there and 10-12 people die per 1000 people per month in Japan. This means that around 500 US citizens should have died in Japan that month. Obviously, the US government doesn't have to account for literally all its citizens dying for any cause anywhere, just the important ones.
1. Oh I see, didn't know that.
2. Sure its an expected number, but its ridiculous that there would be literally 0 deaths given 50,000 people (this was 2012, so I expect it would have grown).
I think the crux of the issue is that they purport to record deaths from non-natural causes "to the maximum extent practicable"; one could argue that both of those clauses leave room for interpretation. Ultimately there's no strong evidence either way, which I'd argue puts the burden of proof in the camp making the claim.
> the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, mandates that, to the maximum extent practicable, the Department of State collect and make available on the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site certain information with respect to each United States citizen who dies in a foreign country *from a non-natural cause.*
> There are 50k US citizens in Japan - none dying for months seems impossible
As far as I can tell that claim is purely based on speculation. It's possible that the death wasn't reported, or was somehow reported as "natural". However, it's impossible to know due to the lack of any basic information. (And I think improbable that Japan, of all places, would screw up the paperwork.)
Not to detract from the overall point — I think there are many reasons to dislike Kiwi Farms — but making dubious claims muddies the water.
I don't think there's conclusive evidence one way or the other. Someone claiming to be Near claimed to be committing suicide, and someone claiming to know Near claimed to have confirmation. No further evidence has surfaced. Personally I'm inclined to believe it (his last tweet still haunts me), but because an entire web forum is being accused of being responsible for it, it bears getting to the truth, at some point.
Would anyone stop defending Kiwi Farms if Near's suicide was proven? Would anyone decide Kiwi Farms is not so bad if Near was proven alive? 2 other targets' suicides are undisputed as far as I know. Kiwi Farms defenders say anyone who killed themselves because of harassment would have killed themselves anyway. And they say an unenforceable rule against interacting with targets means the forum can't be blamed.
Even the USA Today article says "allegedly". And you're right, everyone has already made up their mind based on feelings. That's the cool thing about facts, you don't have to do that.
The headline said Respected developer who was bullied online dies by suicide. My browser found allegedly nowhere in the article. I didn't see anything similar to allegedly when I skimmed it again. Could you point it out?[1]
> And you're right, everyone has already made up their mind based on feelings. That's the cool thing about facts, you don't have to do that.
Not what I said. The cool thing about facts is they shape opinions and actions. I don't think many opinions are shaped by the difference between 2 and 3 deaths.
