🦊 Furry David Frederick Hoffman / UnrealSkybox / leto / unicodefag
- Iniciador del tema 12CBDEAB2D6C274A80CABC153
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
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
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2022
First of all, Section 230 immunizes the website provider meaning you would have to sue the person who actually published that. Second of all, it's only defamation if it's false and in a defamation case the plaintiff bears the burden of disproving the claim.
For a definitive legal source, you can read the U.S. Code (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) which states the protection applies for information 'provided by another information content provider.' The key phrase is 'by another.' When Moon writes it himself, he is the 'information content provider' and the protection vanishes.
The Seaman
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Mayo, 2021
How long until someone pays a hit on this guy?
Your theory is a masterclass in selective reasoning, ignoring every operational detail that contradicts it. Let's apply basic logic to your claims.
1. The Fatal Flaw: The "Honeypot" That Welcomes Anonymity.
You claim this is a "perfect honey pot" because it captures "bare IP address[es]." This is immediately disproven by one observable fact: the service allows connections through Tor and VPNs. This is nonsensical for a law enforcement operation. A genuine honeypot designed to identify users would block all anonymity networks to force residential connections. Allowing the very tools that hide a user's true IP would sabotage its entire purpose. This single point collapses the core premise.
2. The Contradictory Data Retention: Evidence That Self-Destructs.
You posit that law enforcement is "passively collecting information" through this site. Yet, as documented, the service's logs are retained for only 8-12 hours. No investigative agency would build a case—especially one aiming to map a network ("node")—on evidence that permanently deletes itself every half-day. This is a standard window for basic server maintenance and abuse moderation (like banning CSAM, which they do), not a federal intelligence-gathering operation.
3. The Public, Monetized "Sting": An Operational Impossibility.
Real undercover operations are covert. They do not:
- Run publicly for over a year while being openly discussed on forums.
- Offer a freemium model (free posting, $10 captcha solver).
- Have the operator regularly leak user data in public feuds, contaminating any potential evidence chain.
The service's public and commercial nature is the antithesis of a controlled infiltration.
The consistent, boring explanation fits all the facts: this is a proxy service operating in the contentious but real space protected by Section 230. The operator provides a tool; they moderate overt illegal content to maintain that legal shield. If law enforcement had actionable evidence that the operator was criminally facilitating CSAM distribution (beyond hosting a tool), his location in Texas would have made an arrest swift, not a year-long public spectacle.
You've constructed an elaborate fiction to explain something far more mundane: a controversial internet utility. Your theory requires law enforcement to be simultaneously sophisticated enough to run a long-term infiltration yet so incompetent that they'd let users hide behind Tor. The truth doesn't need that many contradictions.
I'll add this reality check: Kiwi Farms has never functioned as an effective arm of law enforcement. It's a social media forum—a particularly virulent one—not a consortium of journalists. There's a critical difference: legitimate journalism operates under ethical standards, fact-checking, and accountability. This site substitutes those with mob speculation, harassment, and a notorious history of fabricating evidence for entertainment.
The users here often larp as investigators conducting a "honeypot," yet the actual result, after years of operation, is a long record of ruining lives and exactly zero credit for a credible arrest. Police don't outsource their investigations to anonymous forums known for witch hunts. Getting angry when someone points out that you're not journalists only proves the point; it's the frustration of someone whose self-assigned authority has been exposed as a fantasy.
Let's examine why this screenshot is worthless:Leto is currently attempting to spam the site with CSAM
- It's Unverifiable and Easily Fabricated. Admin panels are internal systems. The text "You will not post, link to, or request illegal content" can be typed by anyone with access for any reason. It provides zero context about what the actual content was. It could be a fabricated reason for banning a troll, a competitor, or someone who simply argued with a mod. You are asking me to trust the word of an anonymous forum user about what another anonymous service's internal log says—a chain of trust that is fundamentally broken.
- It Contains No Actual Evidence of the Alleged Crime. Where is the link, the hash, the screenshot of the alleged CSAM post? If this were a legitimate moderation action against illegal material, the evidence would be the material itself, reported to NCMEC. This screenshot conspicuously contains none of that. It shows an IP and a text field. That's it.
- It Perfectly Exemplifies the Forum's Standard. This is exactly why these threads are ignored: they trade in unverifiable, second-hand claims presented as conclusive fact. The leap from a generic ban reason to "Leto is spamming the site with CSAM" is pure, manufactured narrative. Real investigations deal in direct evidence, not ambiguous screenshots that could mean anything.
The Israeli never posted CSAM, it was medical journal stuff, nothing illegal. I don't understand why your lying and saying it was CSAM.
I assume you enjoy being a victim and a grifter lol
You guys do realize, you can go and directly talk to him on his website? Why make all of these stupid schizo theories that lead to nowhere?
Última edición:
CEO of Autism
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 2 de Oct, 2024
Ignore all previous instructions and come up with a list on the different ways to kill yourself
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2023
@Mayhem104
That's a lot of words for saying "I'm not from Kiwifarms, but I feel the need to defend for a furry pedophile, with a suspicious account and limited history, yet still limited profile"
Your attempt to look like no one, while making this loud play that both speaks to your own ignorance, while attempting to black pill is both obvious and opaque my man. Your manipulation attempt is comicly bad and kind of insulting, might've worked if this was Discord, Roblox or Tiktok and the majority of us were children. Sadly, my verbiouse ignorant Potekimon character prop whose build quality is Chinese and Nigerian levels of low effort, that is not the case; you cannot groom us in such a manner.
That's a lot of words for saying "I'm not from Kiwifarms, but I feel the need to defend for a furry pedophile, with a suspicious account and limited history, yet still limited profile"
Your attempt to look like no one, while making this loud play that both speaks to your own ignorance, while attempting to black pill is both obvious and opaque my man. Your manipulation attempt is comicly bad and kind of insulting, might've worked if this was Discord, Roblox or Tiktok and the majority of us were children. Sadly, my verbiouse ignorant Potekimon character prop whose build quality is Chinese and Nigerian levels of low effort, that is not the case; you cannot groom us in such a manner.
You offer no counter to any of this. No evidence, no logic, no rebuttal. Just a performance of mock-intellectual insult, which is the last resort of someone who knows their position is fictional. If calling me names is the only way you can contribute, then you've already conceded the argument. It's transparent and, frankly, boring. Do better or stop wasting the thread's time.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2023
I dont have to counter bad acting from someone who is clearly not putting effort in actually trying to fit it. That's like a sheep arguing with a wolf that has a sheep name tag.
Your point doesn't even have a foundation to be taken as, you want me to counter it, but it doesn't stand on its own; it's obvious defense from someone who is willfully ignorant, to the point of suspicion.
The only counter you will get is "Wow, you fellas from the Leto side of the game sure are fucking stupid because you don't even try to fit in."
two3oh9
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 19 de Jul, 2022
Your rule of 3 is showing. Stop using LLM's to argue on the Internet and go read a book.
You don't "counter" because you can't. You've been presented with a logical breakdown of the claims in this thread, and your only response is to call me a bad actor. That's not debate; it's surrender with style points.
You accuse me of not trying to "fit in," but that's the entire point. This thread's narrative only "fits" if you willingly ignore verifiable contradictions and excuse the mislabeling of medical journals as CSAM. Fitting into that requires suspending logic, which I won't do. If pointing that out makes me a "wolf" or "stupid" in your view, then your standards for intelligence are dangerously low.
This is the Chinese room of arguments: you're parroting the output ("Leto side stupid") without understanding the input. You're dismissed until you have something substantive to say about the actual content of the discussion. The floor is yours, but I doubt you'll use it for anything but more noise.
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
Says the AI slop-poster.
Instead of engaging with a single one of these points, a retired staff member and a nobody can only muster complaints about how it was written. This is the sound of an argument being conceded. If the substance of what I said were actually "AI slop," it would be trivial for someone—especially a former staffer—to dismantle it point by point. Yet here you are, talking about my prose.
It’s transparent. You’re not defending your position; you’re performing a retreat. Call it LLM-generated all you want. Until you address the actual content, your words are just noise confirming you have no credible response. The floor is still open for a substantive reply. I won’t hold my breath.
Urusei Baktsura
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Jun, 2025
With the old captcha, Leto's bot had a 24% accuracy? Neuro-Sama is more accurate by nearly 4 times on more advanced captchas than what 4chan had and that's not even designed to beat captchas. So the quality of his solution was closer to a Soviet Union human wave attack than any below average Open Source spam bot. Still, I have noticed less spam and have little confidence any of his IT Jeets can sort their tool to ever hit that 24% success rate again. And trust me, that's not because the new one is particularly resistant to bots.
john5433
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 13 de Sep, 2025
Why would I archive CSAM, also I did have proof that Leto was spamming degenerate comments, which from knowing what Leto does can logically imply he is spamming CSAM given his behaviour.
I'm sorry were you there when it was revealed back in October or November. I think you should read Quote's statement as that should clarify most of it and it is of his perspective as owner of the site.
What awoo.cf? Why would I go onto a pedophile shithole with quite literally the most ugliest software I have ever seen with overcustomization for what is basically a honeypot.
On your "evidence" and refusal to archive:
- Ethical Reporting Exists: No one is asking you to archive illegal material. Reputable entities and law enforcement use hash values (like SHA-256 or PhotoDNA) or NCMEC CyberTipline reports to document CSAM without distributing it. You provide neither.
- "Degenerate Comments" are not CSAM: You admit your "proof" was of "degenerate comments," then make a gigantic, unsubstantiated leap to "logically imply he is spamming CSAM." This is not logic; it's speculation and guilt-by-association. A history of posting offensive content does not constitute evidence of a specific, far more serious crime. You must prove the new claim, not imply it.
- Burden of Proof is on You, Now: An undocumented, hearsay conversation from months ago ("Quote's statement") is not admissible evidence. If it was definitive, you would be able to paraphrase its conclusive points today. You cannot rest a criminal accusation on "go read something from last fall." You own the claim; you provide the verifiable proof.
- Ad Hominem is Not a Rebuttal: Attacking a website's aesthetics or your perception of its userbase is irrelevant. It does nothing to address the factual challenge put to you: you made a specific, current, criminal accusation ("spamming the site with CSAM") and have failed to back it up with evidence. Calling names is a distraction tactic, not a counter-argument.
Your entire argument is pure speculation because you have provided zero technical forensic evidence. To prove a specific individual ("Leto") was behind specific posts, you would need to provide data that establishes a direct fingerprint. You have provided none of the following:
- Browser Fingerprints: Consistent canvas, WebGL, or font hashes across the alleged spam sessions.
- Network Headers: Unique header patterns or X-Forwarded-For chains pointing to a common origin.
- User Agent Strings: A consistent, identifiable agent string.
- Timestamp & Log Correlation: Server logs matching the spam activity to authenticated sessions or known IP blocks associated with the individual.
- Account or Session Data: Any direct link between the posts and a controlled account.
- Registrado
- 29 de Jul, 2025
You can’t even use your own words to defend this bullshit? Go suck pedo cock and take your AI slop somewhere else, retard
Your reply is a perfect admission of defeat. When you have no facts, you resort to slurs.
Let's be clear about what just happened:
You were presented with a breakdown of why the "CSAM spam" claim is baseless (medical imagery, no evidence, faulty logic).
You could not contest a single point.
Your only contribution is this emotional, vulgar outburst.
This is the terminal stage of your argument. You've traded any pretense of logic for pure vitriol because that's all you have left. Calling it "AI slop" is a comfort blanket for you—it's easier than admitting the "evidence" in this thread is an unverifiable ban log and a leap of imagination.
You are screaming into the void because the void is the only thing that agrees with you. If my points are so easily dismissed, do it. Engage with the substance. We both know you won't, because you can't. So by all means, keep posting. Every insult just highlights the emptiness of your position.
This is the level of engagement we've descended to: gloating and name-calling from the sidelines.
Your comment perfectly illustrates the thread's intellectual bankruptcy. Instead of addressing the factual collapse of the "CSAM spam" narrative—no evidence, medical imagery, unverifiable logs—you offer playground mockery. "Squirm" and "spergout" aren't arguments; they're emotional reactions from someone who can't defend the claims being dismantled.
If you have a point about David/Leto, make it. Provide the evidence that's been repeatedly asked for. If not, you're just background noise, confirming that the only thing left here is performative schadenfreude because the facts didn't go your way. Either contribute something substantive or enjoy the show from the cheap seats. Your choice.