There need to he clear rules. If we shut down every forum where someone says something bad once, are we going to shut down Facebook and Instagram? Of course not, we'll stop short of that. So we give an unfair advantage to Facebook and Instagram, forever entrenching them as the only platforms where speech can happen?
Getting back to the Princess Diana analogy, KF probably started as a harmless place to joke about public figures, but in the modern world where everyone is pushed to cultivate their own personal "brand", even someone as uninteresting as a nintendo emulator programmer, it puts regular people at risk of the worst kinds of stalking and harassment etc.
There's no need to assume, we know exactly where KF started. It originally focused on one specific target before branching out, a severely autistic person known as Chris Chan who isn't notable for any reason other than being a target of incredibly intense stalking, harassment and manipulation. The site didn't need to "fall from grace" when its baseline from day one was stalking a random mentally ill person for amusement.
This is demonstrably false. Chris Chan became the obsession of the internet because of his incredibly odd and anti-social behavior, such as plastering signs around campus looking for a "boyfriend free girl" and telling other men with boyfriends to go jump off a cliff (https://sonichu.com/cwcki/Attraction_Sign#The_Sign.2C_Mark_1). Calling him "not notable" is just not true.
Down the Rabbithole has a good video about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPtLvxO8hs
Let me try. KF is a place to archive the publicly-posted online antics of people who willingly publish said antics to the internet. Interacting with the subject of a thread is against the rules and anyone bragging about doing so is banned. If you dislike the idea of people making fun of you for your actions, don't broadcast them to the internet.
Nobody is buying the line that KF is a purely passive observer, when drawing their attention is so strongly correlated with receiving harassment, or that they only observe intentionally published information, when they scoop up so much obviously private information like addresses and deadnames.
This is the same group of trolls connected with the death of the emulator developer Near a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27652814
Wasn't this proven to be a hoax?
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...
So you get third party reports on the net from unknown people, and you tend to believe it at face value?
this may well have happened, but everyone should exercise a bit more caution when reading stuff online.
