XenForo revokes KiwiFarms' license

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,334
I don't agree with your observation and conclusion.
That's fair. I'm sure you aren't alone.

This seems to apply to your train of thought. Have you never banned a site member from using your site for any reason who might harass your members or tarnish you/your sites reputation?
That's a false analogy. They aren't banning a disruptive member and that isn't Xenforo's site. It belongs to someone else who happens to use their software as the vehicle for it. Xenforo are in no way responsible for the content of the site or the conduct of the members. There's no guilt by association to be had here. No one blames the forum software vendor for the actions of the forum owners, just as no one blamed Ford for the OJ Simpson's freeway chase because he drove a Bronco, and no one blamed Charter Arms Corp. because "Son of Sam" used that company's .44 Bulldog Special.

Unfounded assumption perhaps?
Perhaps. But then, this led TrixieTang to question purchasing their product because of the action they took. It's unlikely she's the only one. I don't see that as beneficial.
 

Deathstarr

Forum Owner
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
390
Oh yes they do.
different situation but I agree that they do.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...g-victims-can-sue-smith-and-wesson/ar-AAM49BN

Smith and Wesson is a US firearms maker that had NOTHING to do with the shooting itself other then making a firearm like they have for the past 168 years.

--------------------------
Just like Xenforo has nothing to do with the forum in question but they can be blamed for the content which we have seen over and over with other software companies recently.
Parler was using AWS to host thier service and AWS said nope and shut them down.
 

sixlxvi

Participant
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
54
Again, I have no comment on the censorship situation. But I am keeping up with the thread, and

Have you never banned a site member from using your site for any reason who might harass your members or tarnish you/your sites reputation?
While I understand your sentiment, I don't think this specific example is a reasonable comparison. Us being able to ban users from our own forums is not in the same boat as a business doing what they feel they need to do for their reputation and/or to enforce their license agreement.

I don't agree or disagree with your point. Just saying the analogy seems off.
 

Slavik

Participant
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
81
No one blames the forum software vendor for the actions of the forum owners

The hundreds (thousands?) of tickets we have where people blame us, threaten to sue us, put fake reviews on trustpilot to damage us, threaten to contact the police/fbi etc on us for XenForo being the software a site they disagree with uses would seem otherwise.
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
327
That's a false analogy. They aren't banning a disruptive member and that isn't Xenforo's site. It belongs to someone else who happens to use their software as the vehicle for it. Xenforo are in no way responsible for the content of the site or the conduct of the members. There's no guilt by association to be had here. No one blames the forum software vendor for the actions of the forum owners, just as no one blamed Ford for the OJ Simpson's freeway chase because he drove a Bronco, and no one blamed Charter Arms Corp. because "Son of Sam" used that company's .44 Bulldog Special.
Maybe. But the again, so is yours! :) The fairer analogy would be: should Ford have been forced to continue to do business (sell pickup trucks) to OJ after the chase and subsequent court case? As far as I know, no such decision or discussion took place. However, if Ford had decided that in future none of its dealerships should supply vehicles to OJ Simpson, should there have been a law to prevent them from deciding with whom they do business? Are there any people or entities with whom you would not do business? Would you, for example, (publicly) do business with a Neo-Nazi organization? And before you (might) argue that that's not the same thing, the point is not the specifics of the individual or eniity in question and the reasons for their decsion, but, rather, should government decide with whom businesses trade?

One caveat: I think it is appropriate for government/law to proscribe the prejudicial practices of businesses against classes of people.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,334
We arent worried one slightest bit in being tarnished for our decision on that site.

If anyone would like to go browse the content of that site for an hour and come back to us and say we should continue to do business with them, I await your reasoning.
In my opinion, that site is garbage and ought to be shovelled off the internet. At the same time, I acknowledge their right to run the site as they choose -- clearly, they have an audience.

I also respect your right to revoke the licence for any reason, as per your licence agreement. I simply see it as a political/moralistic decision rather than a good business decision. The site still exists; it still has your branding on it. If your goal was to no longer be associated with that site, you've failed as far as internet viewers are concerned, and potentially made yourselves a target for their particular poison.
 

DarthVader

Aspirant
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
25
Is there any guidance to submit a forum for its content to be reviewed? I find its content offensive and insulting.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,334
Maybe. But the again, so is yours! :) The fairer analogy would be: should Ford have been forced to continue to do business (sell pickup trucks) to OJ after the chase and subsequent court case? As far as I know, no such decision or discussion took place. However, if Ford had decided that in future none of its dealerships should supply vehicles to OJ Simpson, should there have been a law to prevent them from deciding with whom they do business? Are there any people or entities with whom you would not do business? Would you, for example, (publicly) do business with a Neo-Nazi organization? And before you (might) argue that that's not the same thing, the point is not the specifics of the individual or eniity in question and the reasons for their decsion, but, rather, should government decide with whom businesses trade?

One caveat: I think it is appropriate for government/law to proscribe the prejudicial practices of businesses against classes of people.
Well, they don't do much driving in prison.:)

And no, that's not a fair analogy at all. It's a straw man. I didn't and wouldn't argue that any company should be forced to do business with someone. I've acknowledged their right to revoke the licence for any reason. My position has remained that the company made a political/moralistic decision rather than one that was necessarily best for business.

Really, it doesn't matter if they made the decision based on a coin flip. I'm just curious about the potential outcome, in light of the OP. The perception of censorship is a touchy subject these days.
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
327
Well, they don't do much driving in prison.:)
Well, he was actually aquitted of the changes around that incident. He went to prison for unrelated crimes.
And no, that's not a fair analogy at all. It's a straw man. I didn't and wouldn't argue that any company should be forced to do business with someone. I've acknowledged their right to revoke the licence for any reason. My position has remained that the company made a political/moralistic decision rather than one that was necessarily best for business.

Really, it doesn't matter if they made the decision based on a coin flip. I'm just curious about the potential outcome, in light of the OP. The perception of censorship is a touchy subject these days.
Well, fair enoughg, I guess. I don't agree with you, but I am pleased to learn that you are not arguing there is anything censorial about the action to revoke the license for violating its terms.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,334
The hundreds (thousands?) of tickets we have where people blame us, threaten to sue us, put fake reviews on trustpilot to damage us, threaten to contact the police/fbi etc on us for XenForo being the software a site they disagree with uses would seem otherwise.
Again, I accept your greater knowledge on this. But given the picture you paint, it begs the question why forum vendors are so very adamant about having their branding and links prominently displayed on every site. Seems like having the copyright notice in the server directory and inside the code would be less problematic.
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
327
Again, I accept your greater knowledge on this. But given the picture you paint, it begs the question why forum vendors are so very adamant about having their branding and links prominently displayed on every site. Seems like having the copyright notice in the server directory and inside the code would be less problematic.
The dispaly of such notives and branding help advertise the product. Removing those notices does have a negative effect upon sales. It is reasonable to charge for its removal.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,334
Well, he was actually aquitted of the changes around that incident. He went to prison for unrelated crimes.

Well, fair enoughg, I guess. I don't agree with you, but I am pleased to learn that you are not arguing there is anything censorial about the action to revoke the license for violating its terms.
Of course it's censorship. Blatantly so.
If anyone would like to go browse the content of that site for an hour and come back to us and say we should continue to do business with them, I await your reasoning.
I don't have a problem with that. Censorship isn't inherently bad, only when it gets used to justify bad actions.
 

sixlxvi

Participant
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
54
The site still exists; it still has your branding on it.
Not talking about XF in particular, but hypothetically, if this double edged sword needed some type of compromise, what do you think about:

If the site falls under the KiwiFarms category (i.e., content the software doesn't want to be branded to), the site needs to pay the fee to have branding removed. It's either you pay to have the branding removed or you can't have a license.

Could that work for both parties?
 

Oh!

Adherent
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
327
Of course it's censorship. Blatantly so.
XF have decided to cease their business ties with KF. KF are free to continue their website and use another forum software (although ill-advised, they can even continue to XF if they so wish). There have been no governmental or judicial actions in this. It is a commercial decision - it is not censorship any more than it is censorship when you ban a member of your forum because they do not adhere to your terms of service.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
516
Again, I have no comment on the censorship situation. But I am keeping up with the thread, and


While I understand your sentiment, I don't think this specific example is a reasonable comparison. Us being able to ban users from our own forums is not in the same boat as a business doing what they feel they need to do for their reputation and/or to enforce their license agreement.

I don't agree or disagree with your point. Just saying the analogy seems off.
Considering that most if not all our forums are a business of sorts, some more than others, and banning an unwanted user to protect that business and reputation that analogy isn't off at all as I see it. XF has banned an unwanted person from doing business with them as we might ban an unwanted person from doing business with us.
 
Top