When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I did not speak out;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

------

People like you are too easily manipulated. And for what? If it's "just a website" then allowing it to exist isn't a big deal. But it's more than just a website in the same way that the vehicle used to run someone over is more than "just a car".

And while I agree with your overall sentiment, shutting down a website is exact what you're arguing against. If you want to be "good" maybe you should step up and start getting these people thrown in jail for their harassment. But doing so removes the anonymity of the internet, which is a far greater evil.

And that's what it boils down to. You take the good with the bad, just as you take the bad with the good.

Giving everyone the ability to exist online protects both FB and Kiwifarms. To protect FB means to protect kiwifarms. Failing to protect kiwifarms means failing to protect FB. And if you're still not understanding, replace FB with "you" in the previous sentences.

That Kiwifarms needs to be protected but FB doesn't is a circumstance of the current times, but you can't uncork that bottle once it's opened. Failing to protect Kiwifarms means when FB does need to be protected it will not be.

So we tolerate Kiwifarms, not because we think it should exist, but because if we act on the impulse to remove it, it enables others to do the same and the argument is that NO ONE should be able to do that.