So I downloaded that new unpublished study of #DropKiwiFarms and skimmed over it. It has some neat looking timelines and graphs, like this one here:
lready I am noticing so much wrong with it. It's shocking how a bunch of purported academics are willing to state straight up LIES:
First of all, the conflict between Keffals and KiwiFarms long predates #DropKiwiFarms, and was prompted by Keffals, who is a Twitch Streamer, targeting a rival Twitch streamer called Destiny, getting him deplatformed on the online gaming platform Twitch. Many members of KF are young people who are active in gaming communities, and it was this deplatforming of a popular Twitch streamer that brought Keffals to the attention of KF. All of this relevant back lore is left out of this supposedly academic article.
Keffals wasn't subjected to a SWAT raid, it was a house search in response to an impersonator mailing in a mass shooting threat to London, Ontario City Hall. The fact that the impersonator was threatening to target Canadian municipal government officials is left out of this article to make it all about Keffals.
The London Ontario Police department have been investigating this incident for 9 months now, and have still not been able to link it to KF or anyone associated with KF. Yet these academics falsely claim that the impersonator threatening to mass shoot City Hall was "a forum member". There is literally no evidence whatsoever for this claim. You would've expected these academics to have contacted LE to find out if they actually caught the perpetrator of that incident and who it was, but these supposed cybersecurity experts are apparently spectacularly uninterested in any actual justice being served to the person who actually sent that mass shooting e-mail and thus actually triggered all these events.
I personally analyzed all the public tweets between Keffals and his audience leading up to the incident, and it was very clear to me from those public tweets that Keffals had been approached by TRAs who were anti-KF prior to the incident. It's amazing to me how a bunch of academics are so blatantly superficial in their research.
They say they screengrabbed comments that were posted on the forum during the #DropKiwiFarms campaign, so they must've screengrabbed my comments as well, some of which were highlighted. Reading my posts and the screenshots I provided, they should've been clued onto the fact that #DropKiwiFarms was not an organic campaign in response to an impersonator calling in a bomb threat to City Hall, but was likely planned months if not years in advance.
And finally, here you have two academics, publishing in a cyber security journal, who suggest that using outright cybercriminal tactics, namely DDoS attacks (which Interpol denounce on their website and promise to crack down on) is an acceptable and legitimate way to force a website you don't like off the internet.
Other things I noticed while reading their paper:
- They do not situate KF in the US or under US jurisdiction. In fact they bypass the question of determining the relevant legal forum entirely. Their discussion of law is hodge-podge of different legal regimes and examples cited on an ad hoc basis, with no conflict law analysis of how these different legal regimes clash or interact.
- They just assume that because the site is accessible in the UK, it's obliged to comply to UK law. (By that standard most American social media platforms would be criminal defamation under UK law, as American free speech is in no way comparable to the censorious British libel tourism regime.)
This part about Data Licensing is interesting:
Which means, I as a former member of this forum, who was doing and posting my own research into #DropKiwiFarms, I cannot access their dataset to check whether they had screengrabbed my own comments about my own research during #DropKiwiFarms - if only to determine that they saw those posts but intentionally chose to ignore it because it would debunk the false narrative they're trying to put out.
LMAO,
"Researchers may be at risk when doing work on sensitive data(...) we consider options to anonymise authors' names or use pseudonyms for any publication related to the project, including this paper", so they're sooo scared of KF that they won't put their real names to their research... while I have read studies into outright islamic terrorists that have been published by real academics putting their real names to those studies:
And then they wonder why no serious academic journal wants to publish their study... maybe put your real fucking name to it, like all those scholars studying Islamic terrorists are doing?
Next, they say that Null cannot be prosecuted because he denounces people who attempt to use his forum to do illegal stuff, and they also admit that collective punishment is wrong:
No, you don't get to criminalize a whole community and accuse them all collectively of shit they didn't do because you want to use your lying paper to get Null arrested, hoping that will take down KF for good. If you wanted to write a truthful article about these incidents, you would've contacted LE in Canada and asked them if they caught the perpetrator. The fact that you never did only goes to show that you're not interested in actual justice, you're only interested in spreading straight up lies through an academic paper to promote British censorship across the whole internet. The internet is not your backyard. If you don't like American free speech, don't read or access American websites. Americans are under no obligation to cater to your hypersenstitive British sensibilities.
LMAO at how they refer to Kiwis as "survivors":
This part is really sneaky:
In case you didn't get it, this is meant as solliciation: "There is a lack of data on real-world harassment caused by forum members, such as online complaints or police reports". They want people to file fake police reports and to make them public so they can then cite them in their research. It's Wikipedia-style "source-washing" that they're attempting to get away with here. "Source-washing" is when you get a partisan journalist in MSM to write a biased article about an issue or a person, so you can then write a Wikipedia article, or vandalize an existing WP article, where you cite that biased article as an acceptable source. When academics write an article implicitly but not explicitly suggesting: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if a bunch of people filed bogus criminal complaints against KF, and then published those complaints online on social media so we could cite them to source-wash our baseless claims that Kiwis are engaged in criminal behaviour." (which BTW is illegal in many EU countries, where the criminal investigation process is still very closed/private and accusers are legally prohibited from disclosing the name of the accused or from publishing police files which would alert a suspect.)
I also did a search on every mention of the term DDoS in their paper.
The term DDoS is mentioned 70 times in this paper.
At no point do they explicitize the fact that the #DropKiwiFarms had resorted to cybercriminal methods and were themselves breaking the law to take down KF. At no point do they explicitly disavow #DropKiwiFarms resorting to cybercrime to get their way the way they disavow Hasspostings on KF. Only in this paragraph do they suggest that one DDoS attack was
"probably associated with the Twitter campaign the previous day":
In this part they appear to acknowledge that hiring a DDoS service is cybercrime-for-hire, but at no point do they make explicit that this is the very commercial cybercrime that #DropKiwiFarms had engaged to take down an ideological enemy, which is never justifiable:
Notice also the casual tone of the authors here. These academics admit that $10 DDoS services are fact-of-life on the internet that people just have to deal with with DDoS protection services... but the reality of free speech apparently isn't? Crime is a given on the internet that we've just-so learned to live with... but the ability to speak freely isn't something we have to learn to live with? You can tell their morals and values are topsy turvy just from this blase attitude to the inevitability of cybercrime, while at the same time wanting to criminalize and crack down on free speech.
In this paper, the authors appear to pearl clutch over Kiwis for moving to Telegram (which they also scraped) and other off-site platforms to continue shitposting, but at no point do they mention the fact that #DropKiwiFarms were openly hiding their own cybercriminal activities against KF by moving their discussions from Twitter - which disavows their platform being used to plot cybercrimes - to the encrypted messaging app Signal. So Telegram is bad for enabling Kiwis to say nigger, but Signal is good for enabling cybercrimes? That such a preposterous argument is printed in an academic journal on the topic of cybercrime is all you need to know about the present state of academic publishing.
No where in their paper do they analyze the poz.hiv hack on KF but only casually mention it without explicitizing that this cybercriminal hack - the purpose of which was a botched user data-steal and leak - was courtesy of #DropKiwiFarms. At no point do they reflect on the fact that the only reason to deny someone access to an ambulance (DDoS protection) is so you can shoot them with no consequence.
To conclude, why do I suspect that TRA
Emma Best was secretly involved with this study? Perhaps because #DropKiwiFarms themselves openly admitted during their campaign that Emma Best was secretly scraping the forum with the intent to acts as its self-appointed curator and gate-keeper after its demise? Because you know TRAs only hate gatekeeping so they can become the gatekeepers of others. As with any censor, such is their hypocrisy:
"DDoSecrets (= Emma Best) has a copy they will make available to some people, just not the public. Not sure if it's been released, or any more details but they did tweet about having a full scrape."
Lo behold, Emma Best appears to have DFEd all of his tweets in which he had openly admitted to maintaining such an archive of KF that he intended to gatekeep so that only academics and journalists could access what we the stupid gullible plebs should not be allowed to see:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from:NatSecGeek Kiwi Farms&src=typed_query&f=top
https://twitter.com/search?q=from:NatSecGeek #DropKiwiFarms&src=typed_query&f=top
I no longer have a copy of my back-up of Emma Best's tweets at the time, but I think this is only because I posted them on KF when I encountered them.
Fortunately,
the scraper has been very thoroughly scraped himself:
Deleted tweets:
To be clear, DDoSecrets is preparing to share with journalists an unrelated scrape of the site. Currently, we don't have a copy of the hacked data.
https://archive.is/Auysi#selection-29383.0-29383.147
Again, DDoSecrets hasn't been approached about any of this data. What we have is a scrape of public site, which we won't make publicly available. It'll only be available to carefully screened journalists and researches, for obvious reasons.
https://archive.is/Auysi#selection-28790.0-28923.240
I hope one of the companies that KF hopped from agreed to host them just so they could inside job it
https://archive.is/Auysi#selection-28551.0-28551.100
Note again the implied sollicitation in this tweet:
"Currently, we don't have a copy of the hacked data."... just like you currently don't have any copies of police reports against KF, right Emma?
These tweets from Emma Best were posted after the poz.hiv hack of KF, during which #DropKiwiFarms hackers attempted to steal KF user data. The study barely goes into this hack despite how brazenly cybercriminal it was:
We only guess why Emma Best decided to DFE these tweets in which he openly admitted about maintaining a secret KF archive just before the publication of the #DropKiwiFarms study.,, in which these academics admitted using a KF archive going all the way back to 2013 as well as admitting making use of pseudonymized sources while claiming to have even pseudonymized themselves. Coincidence?
For the record, journal-shopping an unpublished study under a fake name while making baseless accusations against an online community, downplaying or ignoring actual cybercrimes while seeking to criminalize free speech, while implicitly solliciting the public to submit bogus police reports so you can retroactively source-wash your baseless claims... that's not real science.
theothermccain.com
www.trusttech.cam.ac.uk
www.cst.cam.ac.uk
link.springer.com
