XenForo revokes KiwiFarms' license

[sbjsbj]

Yet, "there is no universal agreement on the meaning of the term, human dignity".

Really? Is that the angle you are taking?

So until we find a universal agreement on the meaning of that term, anything goes or what?

Cmon, you are better than this.

For a reason this is the number 1 article of human rights. More important, more basic, more fundamental, more elemental right is not possible.

In order for us human beings to live peacefully together in an environment, we must respect human dignity. Doesn't matter what the perfect definition is.

You are clearly intelligent enough to know when you are attacking one's dignity. If not, well, we do. And we don't like that kind of behaviour. I can't do much about it. But for example XF didn't like it and revoked the license. Their right in the free market society. Good for them, it shows that they have integrity. One should praise them instead of "being devastated". Since when is doing a good deed "devastating"? Or are you that fragile (quoting you back)?

 

[Oh!]

So you’re also OK with explicit writing of child pornography, explicit descriptions of how people would want to dismember other people and violate the remains, as well as material explicitly encouraging the rise of terrorism, not to mention espousing the wisdom and joy of ruthless eugenics programs and/or the rise of a superhuman species along the lines of the Aryan nation’s propaganda?

And don't forget images. Proponents of absolute rights in 'freedom of expression' would need to argue for this too. And how about writing up instructions for producing chemical weapons using household products? Of course, fundamental rights are sometimes in conflict with each other. If one right trumped all others in all situations, this would trample over all other rights.

 

[Oh!]

Imagine you are a baker, you bake cakes. Someone asks for a cake to celebrate a gay wedding but this goes against your personal values (in whatever direction). Should you be forced to make the cake or are you allowed to turn them away? (Whose freedom of speech is paramount here?)

I mostly agreed with your post there. But in the above scenario, I would argue that we can differentiate based upon intent. If the baker does not wish to amplify the message by making the cake with a particular statement* - although I do not necessarily agree - I can understand the argument allowing the baker to refuse to bake the cake. If, however, the baker refuses to bake the cake because the customer is gay, this is clearly discriminatory and certainly should not be allowed.

* The Supreme Court case in the US to which you apparent allude sided with the baker. From what I recall, they decided that the baker was not directly discriminating against the gay man. My explanation might way over simplistic or even plain wrong.

 

[\o/]

So you’re also OK with explicit writing of child pornography, explicit descriptions of how people would want to dismember other people and violate the remains, as well as material explicitly encouraging the rise of terrorism, not to mention espousing the wisdom and joy of ruthless eugenics programs and/or the rise of a superhuman species along the lines of the Aryan nation’s propaganda?

There is a difference between explicit descriptions (which can be seen as art) and encouragement (which are not always free speech in my opinion).

There is a narrow line: If you tell me to kill myself, it is fine for me because, well, I probably won’t fulfill your wish. If you tell anyone else to kill me, I would be slightly uncomfortable, but the other person still has a free will and probably won’t do it. If you tell other people to kill all whites, the same thing applies. If you write a long essay about why all whites are responsible for all the bad things that ever happened to anyone and should be killed because of that, my personal border between free speech and agitation is reached and I’ll have a serious problem with that.

Regardless of my own color, by the way.

 

[\o/]

You are clearly intelligent enough to know when you are attacking one's dignity.

I don’t think that everyone holds the same (quality of) dignity. Have you ever watched reality shows?

 

[Pete]

There is a difference between explicit descriptions (which can be seen as art) and encouragement (which are not always free speech in my opinion).

Ah so here is your argument where you actually don’t believe in absolute free speech after all.

Because here’s the kicker: under *absolute free speech* encouragement is just as valid as description. That’s literally the point of freedom of speech, that you have the absolute right to say what you want. (Note that this doesn’t include *consequence* which is something else again.)

If something is not free speech, nothing is under *absolute* free speech. Which means we’re back to finding the place that everyone is OK with, and how curiously the people least OK with “censorship“ are the ones most likely to fall foul of it.

 

[sbjsbj]

I don’t think that everyone holds the same (quality of) dignity. Have you ever watched reality shows?

Everyone has a dignity. One can freely choose to lower the quality of one's own dignity, but it does not give us the right to belittle them because they chose to. Those who understand the value of dignity should do better and be better. For the common good, for being a decent human being, just respect people. You don't have to respect people's opinions, but we have to treat each other respectfully (it goes both ways). And hate speech does not do that very clearly.

The right of human dignity goes before free speech. Because human dignity can never be in conflict with other rights. How can my dignity enter your domain of rights? It can't. However, free speech can be in conflict with other rights as we can see. When in doubt, it has to be valued lower than human dignity. And you can't tell me that being hateful in any shape is not entering my domain of rights. "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected."

For example just because you insulted me, the internet police won't go after you. There are millions of people and daily millions of times people insult each other and attack the human dignity. Granted. But that usually stays between couple of people.
It becomes a whole different level, when those minds group up somewhere. Be it in person or virtually. Now this becomes very threatening. The power of groups should not be underestimated compared to the power of an individual. We all have seen mobbing in schools. Some students team up and bully a person they see as weak. Prime example of how threatening it can be. Many people never recover from their childhood traumas. Would you also say that those bullies have had the freedom of speech?

Just like that if that forum is a cesspool for such people, well, good for XF for not tolerating it.

 

[dtdesign]

Disclosure: I work for a competitor of XenForo Ltd. The following represents nothing but my personal opinion.

In my opinion, it sends a devastating signal when companies decide to stop doing business with former business partners just because the customers of those business partners express free speech on the internet in a way the companies don't like.

In their defense, as a company you do not have to conduct business with someone if you don't want to. For example, if you're selling cupcakes on the street and somebody calls you names, but then asks to buy a cupcake from you, should you be forced to? You can sell them your goods regardless, but at the end of the day it is your decision if you want to or not, nobody is going to force you.

However, it is somewhat concerning that they reserve the right to invalidate the license based on arbitrary rules stated in their license agreement. Things like "illegal activity" are vague at best, also it completely ignores the fact that things could be legal in one country, but illegal in another. At this point I assume that these follow the UK law and therefore they are effectively enforcing UK law over customers from foreign countries running the software on foreign soil. The whole discussion about free speech pretty much sums up the issue. That said, I'm not a lawyer at all, so by all means please take this with a boatload of salt.

There is a huge difference between refusing to make business with somebody in the future versus legally taking away their property without compensation. In my previous example with the cupcakes this is the difference between refusing to sell the person a cupcake versus trying to take away the cupcake from them after they have purchased it.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

All these food analogies are making me hungry.

 

[Oh!]

However, it is somewhat concerning that they reserve the right to invalidate the license based on arbitrary rules stated in their license agreement. Things like "illegal activity" are vague at best, also it completely ignores the fact that things could be legal in one country, but illegal in another. At this point I assume that these follow the UK law and therefore they are effectively enforcing UK law over customers from foreign countries running the software on foreign soil. The whole discussion about free speech pretty much sums up the issue. That said, I'm not a lawyer at all, so by all means please take this with a boatload of salt.

I felt a little uneasy about XF not stating their reasons to revoke their license. However, I wonder if their are potential liabilities with proving 'reasons'. If there was a court case, might XF have to defend those reasons? I don't know - IANAL either - I am just asking a question.

There is a huge difference between refusing to make business with somebody in the future versus legally taking away their property without compensation. In my previous example with the cupcakes this is the difference between refusing to sell the person a cupcake versus trying to take away the cupcake from them after they have purchased it.

Has it been stated that that XF did not reimburse KF?

 

[DarthVader]

Imagine you are a baker, you bake cakes. Someone asks for a cake to celebrate a gay wedding but this goes against your personal values (in whatever direction). Should you be forced to make the cake or are you allowed to turn them away? (Whose freedom of speech is paramount here?)

In this case the cake was already sold… the baker attended the celebration and took the cake back…

 

[Bionic Rooster]

I felt a little uneasy about XF not stating their reasons to revoke their license.

This didn't bother me at all, it's none of my business how they conduct their business.

Has it been stated that that XF did not reimburse KF?

This is irrelevant also.

 

[vikvaliant]

There is a huge difference between refusing to make business with somebody in the future versus legally taking away their property without compensation. In my previous example with the cupcakes this is the difference between refusing to sell the person a cupcake versus trying to take away the cupcake from them after they have purchased it.

It happens all the time. If you're unruly in a restaurant or movie theater you can get tossed immediately. You don't have the right to finish the dinner or watch the rest of the movie that you paid for. What's going on is actually similar to your cupcake example, because they're still using Xenforo as we speak. So they're still eating the cupcake they purchased even though their license got pulled.

 

[dtdesign]

It happens all the time. If you're unruly in a restaurant or movie theater you can get tossed immediately. You don't have the right to finish the dinner or watch the rest of the movie that you paid for. What's going on is actually similar to your cupcake example, because they're still using Xenforo as we speak. So they're still eating the cupcake they purchased even though their license got pulled.

This isn't the same. You're mixing up two fundamentally different things: Your house vs my house.

If they behave unruly at home while watching a movie, then this is their problem, not mine. I'm neither liable nor do I care. However, if the same person shows that behavior in a movie theater then by all means the owner has all rights to kick them out of their house. Their house, their rules.

The issue is that this all boils down to: Your house, their rules.

For comparison, we do have similar rules in our terms for our managed hosting, because at that point this is a liability issue for us. However, by law we have no right to dictate what kind of content can be published on their servers using our software. We might not be happy about it and might cease any further business with them, but that's it. Also because we are not liable for their actions at all, these kind of laws go both way.

 

[Bionic Rooster]

In this case the cake was already sold… the baker attended the celebration and took the cake back…

That's not true, the baker, in his store refused to make the cake where an abusive customer went on a rant.

 

[sbjsbj]

There is a huge difference between refusing to make business with somebody in the future versus legally taking away their property without compensation. In my previous example with the cupcakes this is the difference between refusing to sell the person a cupcake versus trying to take away the cupcake from them after they have purchased it.

Your analogy is flawed, hence why you can make this difference.

In your analogy you use cupcakes where a cupcake is sold to a person.

XenForo license is not sold to anyone. You are renting the license as long as you agree on the terms and pay of course.

So in your analogy you sell something which is why it is hard to revoke that right, since it is already sold. But XenForo license is not sold, it is rented. That is why they can revoke it, you are no longer allowed to rent it. And that is a different thing.

So instead of using cupcakes as an analogy, you should have used "rental cars". A rental car owner can rent you a car but when it sees you are breaching the terms, it can revoke it.

 

[\o/]

So instead of using cupcakes as an analogy, you should have used "rental cars". A rental car owner can rent you a car but when it sees you are breaching the terms, it can revoke it.

A self-hosted forum is not a rental car. It is your own car.

 

[Pete]

And wading around in the details distracts from the actual point at hand.

 

[vikvaliant]

For comparison, we do have similar rules in our terms for our managed hosting, because at that point this is a liability issue for us. However, by law we have no right to dictate what kind of content can be published on their servers using our software. We might not be happy about it and might cease any further business with them, but that's it. Also because we are not liable for their actions at all, these kind of laws go both way.

No one is dictating to them. They're free to use other vendors. In fact, there are vendors out there who specifically cater to hate sites and hate speech. Likewise, no one should dictate to software companies how to run their business or their licensing agreements.

I find it interesting how some rant that people should be able to say and do whatever they want so long as it's legal, but the same does not apply to vendors. They should just shut up and take it. As you said, it goes both ways.

 

[koraldon]

Frankly, as a Xenforo customer I feel it is 100% their right not to do business with a customer.
It is a free world after all.

In this specific case, the kiwi forum is a blight on the internet, if it was my business I would have make the same decision.

A business is not a government beholden to its citizen- they are completely free to do as they will.
All this high words about censorship and so on is absurd. Censorship is only done by a state. The same about freedom of speech which doesn’t apply to business, be it a software company or a forum.

The free will of a business owner to choose its customers is a basic right.