- Dołączono
- 10 Kwi 2023
It's blocked at McDonald's free wifi maybe that's where you got confused.
The actual biggest ISP in the country doesn't give a fuck about blocking this why would anyone else? I'm here via the ISP not hiding behind proxies.
2026-03-16: Australia eSafety: URGENT Class 1 removal notice under the Online Safety Act 2021 from the eSafety Commissioner [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
- Twórca wątku Null
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
The actual biggest ISP in the country doesn't give a fuck about blocking this why would anyone else? I'm here via the ISP not hiding behind proxies.
merpalerpaherp
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 7 Cze 2025
- Dołączono
- 3 Sie 2025
holy shit, speaking of bearing.... potential video from him about the esafety commisioner silencing the farms???
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Eggward biscuitbottom
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 10 Cze 2022
The head of their esafety commision is an American chick tho.
- Dołączono
- 29 Maj 2024
- Dołączono
- 21 Mar 2023
RMQualtrough
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 2 Sty 2021
It's Pinko scum. We're all being run by Pinko scumbags who hate the West and White People, because they were permavirgins and mercilessly bullied as kids and blame the system for their failure to measure up to it
paper_terrorist
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Mar 2026
This is very different. This is just a notification with no legal consequences whatsoever. By contrast, eSafety is threatening Kiwi Farms with nearly $1 million AUD per DAY in fines. The per DAY part I have not made up.
paper_terrorist
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Mar 2026
I was thinking more that it was done by one of the Teletubbies.
A million per day... imagine the economic windfall from those charges. They can go on and sell them to investors and reap a GDP spike of trillions. This is the best thing to happen to kangaroo land since Bearing and Sigartits.
Also, get proper fucked, ya upside down, shorts in January, funny accent cunts.
whatchamacallit
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 15 Kwi 2025
- Dołączono
- 19 Paź 2024
They probably have led a hell of a lot more people to read this than would have otherwise, honestly. The Antioch shooter was mercifully incompetent, successfully killing only one other person before blowing his own brains out, and his manifesto really only stands out because of its name, connection to the Sharty, and attempted invention/promotion of a Incel-adjacent concept called "Crimemaxxing".
- Dołączono
- 8 Sty 2025
I'm copying in the x article by Free Speech Union of Australia:
Here's the thing - even if the underlying document is terrorist promotion material, that doesn't mean you can ban it entirely. The Classification Legislation at Section 9 makes this quite clear:
The notice came with a cover email, which said:
[The notice and Null's response are then quoted in full, check thread OP to see them]
One strange feature of the notice is eSafety have elected not to supply their reasons with it (despite having 9 months to write them, having first become aware of the content in June last year, according to their notice!). Rather, they have asked Kiwi Farms to request them. Given the justification for eSafety's so-called informal notice scheme is that it would be too much work to write reasons, this is odd to say the least. It was not an urgent matter. Rather, the Commissioner waited 9 months for some inexplicable reason.
That is permissible, but unusual. By contrast, the attempt to keep the notice hidden from the end users who posted the content is unlawful: a lesson which has not been learned in the Baumgarten case:
Such an exercise of eSafety risks being a contempt of the Administrative Review Tribunal, in that they seek to conceal notices to prevent them from being appealed. Now there is clear authority from the Federal Court, this is a very risky activity for eSafety staff members to engage in. Perhaps this explains why the decision maker in the eSafety Commissioner office chooses not to be named. eSafety recently abandoned an application to anonymise their staff in another matter, so this may get interesting, [sic]
Predictably, the relevant content is now a trending story on Kiwi Farms. So eSafety have succeeded in spreading the 'Class 1' material a lot more widely.
So onto the merits. How would Kiwi Farms (easily) win? The first thing to remember is that an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal 2024 (Cth) is de novo. It remakes the decision of the Commissioner afresh. So it is not an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner. We can see at least two grounds:
1. The decision is not the preferable one
Issuing such a notice is ineffective at promoting online safety. The likely result is to further spread the material, as well as in effect provide support to the cause in question. To put it another way, the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner to issue the notice was inappropriate, even if she had the power to do this.
All other cases have never got to the point of the Commissioner's discretion being re-exercised by the Tribunal. That is because the Commissioner has been found to have no power at all to issue the notice, and the notice was thus illegal. But this is a case where other powers could be exercised: for example, a notice could be issued to someone else (like a search engine), to minimise the risk in question.
2. The ban was of the content without considering its contextualisation
The problem is that Kiwi Farms is a forum. The posts in question publish the 'Manifesto' in question and then discuss it. The notice targets the entire manifesto. But that is not likely to be lawful. For example, I could post a video of Osama Bin Laden supporting the 9/11 attacks, with a post condemning it and contextualising it. The problem is that eSafety listed the PDF file, not the posts in question. This is a basic technical error.
In short, if Kiwi farms took the decision to the Tribunal (they should do this after applying for reasons - this is free and just a short email), then they would probably win. eSafety has messed up, yet again. Hopefully Kiwi Farms will get around to doing it. Based on our experience with the other eSafety cases, we can assure them it will create many 'LOLZ' to come.
A little bonus, here's them explaining their own position as an Australian organization trying to post about this; no matter how bad things seem in America, remember they could be worse:
Will eKaren lose against Kiwi Farms?
The eSafety Commissioner recently sent a notice to Kiwi Farms banning a certain racist political manifesto. Some of it includes material that might encourage incitement to violence and potentially even a terrorist attack. Anyone reading it would take the view it is a horrible document.Here's the thing - even if the underlying document is terrorist promotion material, that doesn't mean you can ban it entirely. The Classification Legislation at Section 9 makes this quite clear:
The notice came with a cover email, which said:
[The notice and Null's response are then quoted in full, check thread OP to see them]
One strange feature of the notice is eSafety have elected not to supply their reasons with it (despite having 9 months to write them, having first become aware of the content in June last year, according to their notice!). Rather, they have asked Kiwi Farms to request them. Given the justification for eSafety's so-called informal notice scheme is that it would be too much work to write reasons, this is odd to say the least. It was not an urgent matter. Rather, the Commissioner waited 9 months for some inexplicable reason.
That is permissible, but unusual. By contrast, the attempt to keep the notice hidden from the end users who posted the content is unlawful: a lesson which has not been learned in the Baumgarten case:
Such an exercise of eSafety risks being a contempt of the Administrative Review Tribunal, in that they seek to conceal notices to prevent them from being appealed. Now there is clear authority from the Federal Court, this is a very risky activity for eSafety staff members to engage in. Perhaps this explains why the decision maker in the eSafety Commissioner office chooses not to be named. eSafety recently abandoned an application to anonymise their staff in another matter, so this may get interesting, [sic]
Predictably, the relevant content is now a trending story on Kiwi Farms. So eSafety have succeeded in spreading the 'Class 1' material a lot more widely.
So onto the merits. How would Kiwi Farms (easily) win? The first thing to remember is that an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal 2024 (Cth) is de novo. It remakes the decision of the Commissioner afresh. So it is not an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner. We can see at least two grounds:
1. The decision is not the preferable one
Issuing such a notice is ineffective at promoting online safety. The likely result is to further spread the material, as well as in effect provide support to the cause in question. To put it another way, the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner to issue the notice was inappropriate, even if she had the power to do this.
All other cases have never got to the point of the Commissioner's discretion being re-exercised by the Tribunal. That is because the Commissioner has been found to have no power at all to issue the notice, and the notice was thus illegal. But this is a case where other powers could be exercised: for example, a notice could be issued to someone else (like a search engine), to minimise the risk in question.
2. The ban was of the content without considering its contextualisation
The problem is that Kiwi Farms is a forum. The posts in question publish the 'Manifesto' in question and then discuss it. The notice targets the entire manifesto. But that is not likely to be lawful. For example, I could post a video of Osama Bin Laden supporting the 9/11 attacks, with a post condemning it and contextualising it. The problem is that eSafety listed the PDF file, not the posts in question. This is a basic technical error.
In short, if Kiwi farms took the decision to the Tribunal (they should do this after applying for reasons - this is free and just a short email), then they would probably win. eSafety has messed up, yet again. Hopefully Kiwi Farms will get around to doing it. Based on our experience with the other eSafety cases, we can assure them it will create many 'LOLZ' to come.
- Dołączono
- 3 Sie 2025
>if we repeat what the name of the manifesto is, we might lose our account.
My brother in christ, if your going on about FREE SPEECH and mention KIWI FARMS, talk about the subject like men, don't be a pussy and skirt around censorship. Just call the niggercell manifesto: the niggercell manifesto, its simple as that. The only people who care about these sorts of things are fucking shitlibs and niggers who'll go "AAAAAAAA, WHOEVER WROTE THIS SAID THE N WORD, SOMEONE DELETE THIS POST IMMEDIATELY!!!!!"
- Dołączono
- 16 Gru 2019
The Great Emu Wall of Australia.
Gott strafe London.
Let's split the difference and dump her halfway between our two nations. Damned if I know what's halfway between Hawaii and Australia, but I'm sure a smart, capable woman like her will find her footing in no time.
I CAN'T SNEED!
As to my own thoughts... Australia is a land obsessed with niggercels. And I don't know the rest of the copypasta because its as faggoty and up its own arse as Australia is.
- Dołączono
- 20 Lut 2017
Practically sounds likes Izzat.
Unknown God
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 19 Kwi 2025
That poor couple can't catch a break, one of their kids turns out to be a paralyzed-face sex pest retard that has to be put up for adoption, and the other one turns out Australian.
- Dołączono
- 11 Sie 2019
TL;DR:
paper_terrorist
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Mar 2026
These signatures represent their fluid gender-identities, did you not know?
- Dołączono
- 29 Sie 2024
I gotta congratulate @Potentially Criminal for successfully Pavlov’ing hearing him go “MY LEWF FOOW” in my head when I see a picture of that signature.