Nektar Geist
An Onion Among Onions
It's also more reasonable to think that.
Potatoes. Deep fried, with cheese.
NOw we understand the homoerotic attraction joshy has for the Peterborough Paki Puncher.
Then remembers his Mum getting black'd.
š§ Community Feature Submissions š§
- Home was messaged by Ashley who wanted to find out how old she was
- Iran Launched Ballistic Missiles at Central Israel: Possible Light Damage to Al_Aqsa Mosque and Church of the Holy Sepulchre In Jerusalem
- Donald Trump wants to tighten the screws on News Media
- US TikToker Ethan Lewis Is under Fire for Giving Iran coordinates to strike US Patriot Defense Systems in Israel
- Our Facebook Page and Advertisement Campaign. Yes, we have been verified on Facebook.
- Onionfarms vs. Kiwifarms {The Right Way To Do This} (AI Generated)
- Joshua "Moon" Null have started his legal crusade in a form of lawsuit against Elliot "Liz" Fong-Jones, transgender ex-Google employee and Honeycomb CEO
Null š„ Joshua Moon Megathread
- Thread starter Randy Know
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1776hosting 1776hosting.com 2tsuki bear chemical cringe deceptive deviant dick fancy fancy bear farms fat flow flow chemical fraud huckster josh joshua conner moon joshua connor moon joshua moon kengle kenneth erwin engelhardt kiwi kiwifarms mental illness moon null onionfarms picture pizza stocking vincent vincent zhen warwick ri zhen
Joshua Moon the owner of Kiwifarms
AnimeSucksCopeAndSneed
Baby Onion
Bro said:
Imagine giving someone $20 a month to give them the ability to dox you if you ever make them mad enough.
Kiwismarms
Remarkable Onion
He's moved the goal posts. He now has 610/700 at the bottom of the page. Why does he need an extra 100 contributors?
Because he have to egg hatch and troon out more of kiwitards?
I mean come on, ain't it obvious? He'll use every opportunity to make a living via leeching it off others, like a parasite.
Kiwi Pot Pie
Hellovan Onion
Because the Last Bastion of Free Speech on the Capital-I Internet is under attack and Josh needs as much money as you can give him to defend it.
Well, looks like we won't be seeing a reply from LFJ to Null's lolsuit any time soon: his lawyers want 90+ days to respond.
Source
How Null feels:
Source
As to the lolsuit itself, I've given it some thought, I've done some reading into cases with online platforms seeking Declaratory Judgements (mostly Twitter/X against the US government over government leaks, I personally have not found a case of an online platform or website suing a private individual for DJ over content), and here's where I am right now with Null's case against LFJ. Again, not a lawyer, not your lawyer, this is just my personal opinion.
Here's the problem I have with Null's request for a DJ:
Null is trying to make it seem like he's requesting a DJ because LFJ's DMCA take-down is prima facie bad faith, so he argues he should be allowed to just ignore such a blatantly bad faith request instead of "going through the motions" just for the sake of compliance as required by the DMCA: take down the content first, give the user an opportunity to contest the removal, then put it back online.
However, Null has made it abundantly clear in his public comments that the reason he actually wants to be allowed to bypass the DMCA take-down protocol is not just because LFJ' request is prima facie bad faith, but because Null suspects that if he did go through the DMCA motions, he would be forcing his users to doxx themselves to him, as the motions require the party contesting the take-down (in this case a user whose post was removed) to object under their real name and address. Null claims that Liz Fong Jones is abusing this requirement to get Kiwis to doxx themselves, so that LFJ later sue Null and abuse the discovery process to gain access to Kiwis' personal infoz. Null points to LFJ having previously stated his intent to obtain Kiwis' doxx to ruin their lives. Null claims that he promised his users to protect their online anonymity on the forum, and this promise is sacrosanct to him so that users do not lose faith in him and his platform. Here's what Null said about this on the last MATI:
The problem that I have is that Null's Fair Use claim is so much more stronger than his malicious intent claim ("DMCA forces my users to doxx themselves, which would then give LFJ access to their information"). The second claim is not based on something that has already happened but on a future hypothetical.
It's a fact and a matter of public record that LFJ has stated publicly on Twitter during #DropKiwiFarms that he would like to doxx Kiwis to ruin their lives. LFJ also stated at the time: "The best form of moderation is where not just the mods are handing stuff down, but where you ridicule and ostracize people who repeatedly push the line rather than cheering them on"
But AFAICT Null cannot prove that LFJ has already abused private information obtained by him through compliance to the DMCA to doxx Kiwis and ruined their lives. Null alludes that this has already happened, but what is his evidence for this? If he puts the above tweets into evidence, LFJ can easily claim that this was just idle talk in the context of public trans activism, and therefore not a credible threat to actually doxx Kiwis.
Does Null have testimonies from Kiwis that LFJ has doxxed and that this has happened to? I don't understand how you can go before a judge and claim you should be allowed to ignore the DMCA on the basis of a future hypothetical, unless you have a very strong case for the likelihood of something happening. It shouldn't be a "maybe", it should be a "guaranteed to happen".
Like, if Null had already followed DMCA protocol, removed the glamour shot and given the user an opportunity to object to the removal under their real identity, with Null then placing the Bsky glamour shot back online because he was satisfied with the user's objection, but LFJ kept sending letters through his legal firm demanding that Null to prove that the poster had actually objected under their real identity... I can see how that would create a situation where a user's privacy is on the verge of being violated. That's not the situation here. I don't feel like Null has made a strong enough case for his claim that LFJ is abusing the DMCA protocol with ulterior motives. I think it's right for Null, given LFJ's public statements, to assume that LFJ has ulterior motives and is abusing what he thinks is a legal loophole in the DMCA to get private infoz. But assuming is not being sure of something happening.
I feel like it's very easy for LFJ to counter Null's argument with: "But I never asked Null to give me any of his users' private information, I'm only asking him to take my glamour shot down in accordance with the DMCA. I don't care about the identity of the user who posted it, I just want my picture removed. That's all I ask for.". Null is probably gonna say: "No, you never had to ask for my users' infoz cos you just had Hackers on Estradiol hack my forum to then doxx my users illegally.", but again, how can you credibly and definitively trace this back to LFJ before a judge? You can't, so the prospect of LFJ doxxing your users is a mere hypothetical as far as the judge is concerned. The judge in NY doesn't know the whole context of #DropKiwiFarms and the hacking of the forum ALLEGEDLY being plotted behind the scenes by Keffals, LFJ, Esqueer and other troons at the time, for the purpose of doxxing Kiwis and thus driving them away from the forum.
I now fear that the NY judge is just gonna say: "Don't make promises to your users you can't keep. The DMCA protocol has a built-in mechanism for allowing protected content to be restored after compliance to a take-down. If it was a bad faith take-down request, you can just put the protected content back online after the user has credibly objected to its removal. You wanting to preserve the anonymity of your users is not reason enough for you to be exempt from going through the DMCA motions, even if it's in response to a prima facie bad faith take down request."
Source
How Null feels:
Source
As to the lolsuit itself, I've given it some thought, I've done some reading into cases with online platforms seeking Declaratory Judgements (mostly Twitter/X against the US government over government leaks, I personally have not found a case of an online platform or website suing a private individual for DJ over content), and here's where I am right now with Null's case against LFJ. Again, not a lawyer, not your lawyer, this is just my personal opinion.
Here's the problem I have with Null's request for a DJ:
Null is trying to make it seem like he's requesting a DJ because LFJ's DMCA take-down is prima facie bad faith, so he argues he should be allowed to just ignore such a blatantly bad faith request instead of "going through the motions" just for the sake of compliance as required by the DMCA: take down the content first, give the user an opportunity to contest the removal, then put it back online.
However, Null has made it abundantly clear in his public comments that the reason he actually wants to be allowed to bypass the DMCA take-down protocol is not just because LFJ' request is prima facie bad faith, but because Null suspects that if he did go through the DMCA motions, he would be forcing his users to doxx themselves to him, as the motions require the party contesting the take-down (in this case a user whose post was removed) to object under their real name and address. Null claims that Liz Fong Jones is abusing this requirement to get Kiwis to doxx themselves, so that LFJ later sue Null and abuse the discovery process to gain access to Kiwis' personal infoz. Null points to LFJ having previously stated his intent to obtain Kiwis' doxx to ruin their lives. Null claims that he promised his users to protect their online anonymity on the forum, and this promise is sacrosanct to him so that users do not lose faith in him and his platform. Here's what Null said about this on the last MATI:
The problem that I have is that Null's Fair Use claim is so much more stronger than his malicious intent claim ("DMCA forces my users to doxx themselves, which would then give LFJ access to their information"). The second claim is not based on something that has already happened but on a future hypothetical.
It's a fact and a matter of public record that LFJ has stated publicly on Twitter during #DropKiwiFarms that he would like to doxx Kiwis to ruin their lives. LFJ also stated at the time: "The best form of moderation is where not just the mods are handing stuff down, but where you ridicule and ostracize people who repeatedly push the line rather than cheering them on"
But AFAICT Null cannot prove that LFJ has already abused private information obtained by him through compliance to the DMCA to doxx Kiwis and ruined their lives. Null alludes that this has already happened, but what is his evidence for this? If he puts the above tweets into evidence, LFJ can easily claim that this was just idle talk in the context of public trans activism, and therefore not a credible threat to actually doxx Kiwis.
Does Null have testimonies from Kiwis that LFJ has doxxed and that this has happened to? I don't understand how you can go before a judge and claim you should be allowed to ignore the DMCA on the basis of a future hypothetical, unless you have a very strong case for the likelihood of something happening. It shouldn't be a "maybe", it should be a "guaranteed to happen".
Like, if Null had already followed DMCA protocol, removed the glamour shot and given the user an opportunity to object to the removal under their real identity, with Null then placing the Bsky glamour shot back online because he was satisfied with the user's objection, but LFJ kept sending letters through his legal firm demanding that Null to prove that the poster had actually objected under their real identity... I can see how that would create a situation where a user's privacy is on the verge of being violated. That's not the situation here. I don't feel like Null has made a strong enough case for his claim that LFJ is abusing the DMCA protocol with ulterior motives. I think it's right for Null, given LFJ's public statements, to assume that LFJ has ulterior motives and is abusing what he thinks is a legal loophole in the DMCA to get private infoz. But assuming is not being sure of something happening.
I feel like it's very easy for LFJ to counter Null's argument with: "But I never asked Null to give me any of his users' private information, I'm only asking him to take my glamour shot down in accordance with the DMCA. I don't care about the identity of the user who posted it, I just want my picture removed. That's all I ask for.". Null is probably gonna say: "No, you never had to ask for my users' infoz cos you just had Hackers on Estradiol hack my forum to then doxx my users illegally.", but again, how can you credibly and definitively trace this back to LFJ before a judge? You can't, so the prospect of LFJ doxxing your users is a mere hypothetical as far as the judge is concerned. The judge in NY doesn't know the whole context of #DropKiwiFarms and the hacking of the forum ALLEGEDLY being plotted behind the scenes by Keffals, LFJ, Esqueer and other troons at the time, for the purpose of doxxing Kiwis and thus driving them away from the forum.
I now fear that the NY judge is just gonna say: "Don't make promises to your users you can't keep. The DMCA protocol has a built-in mechanism for allowing protected content to be restored after compliance to a take-down. If it was a bad faith take-down request, you can just put the protected content back online after the user has credibly objected to its removal. You wanting to preserve the anonymity of your users is not reason enough for you to be exempt from going through the DMCA motions, even if it's in response to a prima facie bad faith take down request."
Because there is a core of extremely loyal and wealthy KiwiFarmers who are willing to do what it takes to fund Null to keep the forum going. You just saw him reach both his funding goals within a day of posting them, but we're supposed continue peddling this fucking nonsense from Pickles and that other guy, that the users supposedly all hate Null now, and the moderators are against him too and on the verge of staging a mutiny.
(I personally have repeatedly speculated that this core of wealthy KF donors is very likely Drama Youtubers who rely on KiwiFarms for content for their Online Drama videos. If KiwiFarms were to disappear then their easy access to drama content disappears along with it, so these alleged Youtubers have an incentive to keep KF going for the sake of their own Youtube channels' survival.)
Kiwi Pot Pie
Hellovan Onion
Kevin Crawley was doxed because he decided to play a stupid game and offer "real" LFJ leaks by claiming he was a coworker. LFJ doxed him and threatened to sue him for defamation, so he settled with LFJ by posting an apology to the thread admitting he lied. So the question is whether this is something LFJ (or his followers) would do to any Kiwi he doxed, or just to Kevin Crawley for lying about having access to privileged information.
Personally, I would be at least a little worried about being doxed by LFJ. Null has deep pockets, a decent lawyer, and an army of paypigs. While this may be unlikely, nothing is stopping LFJ from filing defamation suits that someone like Null could easily get dismissed under anti-SLAPP. These Kiwis who lack access to legal counsel or who do not want to be publically dragged through the court system would be given a "reasonable" settlement offer (read: legal shakedown). That would be great promotion for LFJ's reputation management business.