Monday, June 28, 2021

Near, a Member of the Rockman EXE Phantom of Network/Legend of Network Preservation Team, Has Died

Near, perhaps best known as the creator of BSNES and higan, has died. Word of their passing came from a poignant letter, authored by a close friend. They were the victim of relentless, unflinching cyber bullying.

A true purveyor of video game emulation and preservation, Near was an absolutely brilliant programmer... and a kind, caring human-being. I was fortunate to work with Near earlier this year. After we secured Rockman EXE: Phantom of Network and Rockman EXE: Legend of Network, they joined the preservation team to assist with emulation.

Near supported and shared in our cause to preserve and distribute these two rare games with Mega Man fans everywhere. Although the project remains ongoing, we have suffered a tremendous loss. We will not soon forget their efforts -- no one will. 

Our thoughts go out to Near's family, friends and colleagues.

-------------------- 

The National Suicide Prevention Hotline is available 24/7 at 1-800-273-8255. A list of international suicide hotlines can be found here.

56 comments:

  1. Why was Near bullied? Does it have anything to do with the article exclusively referring to Near as they? It's messed up if so I am just curious cause there are different reasons for different things. If say Near was a bully and made the bed to lay in, I would have more of an understanding, but if say Near was just a random person not bothering anyone and just making some emulation stuff then getting bullied at random excessively first of all I'd find that weird, second tho I'd be a lot more sympathetic and emotional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Near tried to bribe the owner of KiwiFarms into taking down the thread about him, and threatened to commit suicide if it was not done so.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, they were trans, and apparently some asshats on Kiwifarms didn't like that fact.

      Delete
    3. Also Near offered services to KiwiFarms' owner if the thread was taken down. It was purely a manipulation tactic and Null could have gotten in a tremendous amount of legal trouble for accepting the 120 grand.

      On the notice Null put up:

      In it, he attempted to exort me. Byuu claimed that if I did not delete all information about him on the forum, he would kill himself and blame me.

      He offered me $120,000 cash. I saw this as a legally and morally dubious offer at best, entrapment at worst, so I declined.

      He also offered me his services helping write software for the Kiwi Farms.

      I told him I would have to consult an attorney regardless. He did not wait even 24 hours after his first email before closing communications and deciding to go through with his plan at 3am my time.

      In his emails to me, he promised a trusted friend would deliver a scan of his passport on Twitter within 5 hours of him killing himself as proof. Two days later, we still do not have this passport scan or any evidence he has killed himself besides the testimony of a Twitter user, citing an anoynmous third party.

      Delete
    4. @Tiny Proto: And why do you think he did that? Did you read the actual emails between them? Your choice of words really fits your avatar right now.

      Delete
  2. Not gonna make Judgment on this until I have more evidence, the letter from the friend just sounds like a political campaign ad to me. I have no idea why Kiwi Farms "targeted" anyone and doxing of ANYONE is a big offense to my principles of moral conduct law or no law, but same as all crime, people and groups have been falsely accused of doxing before.

    It is unfortunate that someone took their own life (and yes I believe that is what suicide is especially if done due to mental stress and not imminent/existing external physical harm) but I have to do my due diligence in evaluating the situation, one that I know nothing about and just sprung onto me, before I make any meaningful commentary directly on it, in support of any position.

    I will say this tho, using someone's death to promulgate the message that service providers discriminate and banish their clients out of guilt in being culpable is a very serious thing to me and not just something I support willynilly. I will also say that I find the letter very targeted and phrases like "being passive about this problem means being complicit" to be very suspect. Again IDK the situation I am just saying those things stand out as redflags not to jump to conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kiwi Farms is a site dedicated to doxing and online harassment. It's literally its sole purpose for existing.

      Delete
    2. Documenting, not doxing. Users are encouraged not to interact with the people discussed.

      Delete
    3. "Kiwi Farms is a site dedicated to doxing and online harassment."

      That can't be true because the combination of those things are illegal, and a site literally couldn't sustain itself solely doing those things as a means of operation in U.S which the U.S would most likely be the only place in the world granting the possibility of doing so due to its once upheld laws of freedom in the first place.

      To me the anti-Kiwi Farms or whatever ("pro Near") side looks like they are propagandizing, the reverse side just seems like they are being maligned and threatened for being critical of a community figure at one point. This is my take on it as an outsider that investigated a little of both side's story.

      Delete
    4. Yes, but said documenting can lead to doxing OFF SITE, as Near has mentioned. As if that website isn't anything but a cesspool of hate anyway.

      Delete
    5. People still do it and still get away with it. DSP has dox someone and it's on record and you don't see him in any trouble or arrested now do you? LTG has harassed someone for 2 years and dox him but you don't see him in trouble. People have doxxed the guy behind FNAF along with Dream and nobody is in trouble.

      Delete
    6. @Tofu Patty: "DSP has dox someone and it's on record and you don't see him in any trouble or arrested now do you?"

      Doxing is contextual in legal terms it is dependent on the severity of damages, incitement associated with it and type of information disclosed (among other things). Often times just doxing on its own (depending on context) is not illegal but doxing and harassing and/or inciting harassment is. I happen to have been following DSP, and to compare him to an alleged entire community hub with the "sole purpose" of doxing and harassment is a gross exaggeration and patently absurd, which gives me insight into how you are willing to disperse information.

      I have been following LTG (or his "antics" for lack of a better term to be more clear) as well just not as closely, frequently or recently (one highly toxic guy to keep track of is already too much) and he is a gross dude but even he is not dedicated to doxing and harassment, I also, based on how you've framed DSP, highly doubt the validity of the claim that LTG doxed and harassed an individual for 2 entire years continuous without legal ramifications.

      But I am willing to believe that LTG did so (as dubious as it seems), even then I can sort of see murky waters with that situation and LTG getting away with it... but an entire website dedicated to it as its sole purpose??? No, I am going to need more than accusations to drink that kool-aid. Also I looked into this situation. Kiwi Farms has provided every single interaction on the website pertaining to the relevent thread prior to this event and Near's interactions with the site leading to this event, both in archive form with time verification. In no way is what I witnessed constituting harassment, at least enough to be legally applicable. I personally based on the thread I have seen on Kiwi Farms about this situation have suffered harsher targeted vitriol for, no joke, defending games like X7 on social media. Basing things on that thread being considered harassment and doxing, 99.9% of internet drama would constitute harassment and any social media reference would be considered doxing.

      Now you might say the bulk of the harassment happened elsewhere but I have not been directed to any of this, not a drip of evidence that links anything to Kiwi Farms or anything else to be fair. If so provide it and I will make a more informed opinion on the matter. If not, the side acting like this is clear cut is going to seem like the libelous propagandists to me and generally not in a good light.

      Also @Anon above, calling things a cesspool of hate and discouraging people to associate with things is fine, where I draw the line is when people use their lives as tools to bargain with, commit suicide then some anon randomly mobilizing groups and targeting corporations to deplatform their opposition by calling them murderers and worse anyone else who doesn't mobilize murderers because of said suicide, especially with the kind of evidence I see related to this case.

      Delete
    7. There are a wide number of reasons why people could get away with doxxing without legal ramifications. I mean to doxx someone without masking one's IP address and staying in full anonymity oneself is just inviting legal issues.

      There's also the issue of when something like that goes public, sometimes other people will start stepping up claiming they were also targeted and it becomes harder for the police to do anything, this is the reason I was told why Zak Kayes, formerly known as ToonKriticY2K, wasn't put in jail when he was ousted for being a pedophile (course, he should have been ousted and put in jail sooner for sexual harassment, something many prominent members of the "Bronalysis" community knew about and kept secret well before he was ousted for being a pedophile).

      Delete
  3. Wow didn't know they were apart of this... That's mad unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. His death literally is the reason Kiwifarms is down at the moment. This is so incredibly unnecessary and'll have accomplished nothing in the long run. This is a waste of time.

    All of Kiwifarms is unavailable now because of this one on-going incident. This DDOS is not going to prove any point. How did these people not realize that is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's very sad. I know some people here in Rockman-corner who are bullying one another too and nag at their grammars. I am not name naming anybody here in Rockman-corner. Some people here are cover in the mask showing sympathy and mercy. Beware of fake and false! See ? Woke up. Stop bullying one another. Respect each others with love and care. We are all one family. Hate and make fun and gossip are the reasons MOST human are cruel and monster. Good things that there are SOME human are good in this Earth. The future is TERRIBLE and it is NOT GETTING better ever. Sad, really sad! Stupid to "MOST" human being causes this!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, there seems to be two factions on this particular story:
    On the one side, we have people saying that Near was a super-fantastic person on top of being a coding genius and video game preservationist.
    On the other side, we have people saying that Near was severely unstable and actually tried to bribe people with money and services in order to keep some sort of secrets away from prying eyes?

    Meanwhile, I'm sitting back here just wondering how people keep letting themselves get "cyber-bullied".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im just gonna say rest in peace even if some of those bad things are true, mostly because even of he did those things that doesn't warrant death.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I've seen anyone say he was actually a "super fantastic" person (apart from his software). But a decent person at the very least. Certainly not the kind of person who deserves to have a KF page on them displaying the more controversial parts about them that can be (and did) used as a basis to attack him (and his friends) outside of that thread as well. He didn't "let himself" get cyber bullied, as seemingly having any kind of notoriety can be enough for them to talk about you. He also said that the thread was one of the first things to come up if you googled his name. Most people haven't had this experience, yet are acting like would know what it's like to be in his shoes.

      Delete
    3. It's very easy when the bully knows how to get to you. Even more so if they are able to not only know who you are, but your family, where you live and how to completely destroy your life with lies by posting on Twitter and letting an angry mob to the rest without anyone of that mob thinking maybe they should look at both sides before starting drama.

      It's even worse when this all happens because said bully is also a bully at your place of work and despite having been called out on it might not have been punished for their crimes when it escalates to suicide, even more so if that was the intended effect.

      This pretty much sums up what happened the creator of Night in the Woods thanks to Zoe Quinn. The fact it even got that far at all is an issue. Seems something somewhat similar happened here with Near at least as far as being bullied into suicide goes but obviously more info is needed to know for sure cause there are always 2 sides to the story as been stated thus far.

      Delete
    4. Thank you to the three people who replied to my comment. I appreciate that you took the time to respond and give some insight into "cyber-bullying".

      I've done some further research into the topic since my last post, myself, and… well, my opinion is unchanged. I still think people let themselves get abused on the Internet. However, I now realize that some people are willing to put up with that kind of thing for so long because they're usually getting something out of the relationship. And sometimes, that "something" is worth more to them than their own well-being.

      Delete
    5. So what do you think the "something" was that Near was getting? Genuinely asking.

      Delete
    6. Validation, mostly. Or acknowledgment. Or maybe, just plain attention. Hard to say, but that's usually the case.

      Delete
    7. @Josephine Lithius

      So if I were to create my own website, and in it have a page selectively taking all controversial comments you've had here on RC (assuming you have any), quotes from Discord/IRC/whatever of you at your worst, documentation of say any psychological issues you might have had at any point and then discuss that with dozens of others who collectively start dogpiling on you and said page becomes first page of Google results when your username is searched...would that be you "letting" yourself be abused?

      Delete
    8. You make it sound like he made that thread for himself when he didn't.

      Delete
    9. @Anonymous (July 2, 2021 at 9:13 PM)
      That's a long sentence…

      A forum thread showing me at my worst, in-or-out-of-context, has absolutely no impact on me, directly. People can – and often will – do what they want.
      However, if I was invited to discuss myself with the group of people, then found myself being directly attacked by those in the forum post, I would be letting myself be abused if I stuck around instead of leaving.

      Here's another example of that:
      Let's say I'm minding my own business on social media. Someone makes a post about me, saying some unkind things in an attempt to get a response. I decide to respond.
      If the person who got my attention was willing to listen to what I had to say, then that's a dialogue. Even if they continued to be negative, as long as they were listening, that's not abusive behavior. However, if they continued to do nothing but attack me without any interest in an actual conversation, yet I stuck around anyway, that would be letting myself be abused.

      Do you see the difference?

      Delete
    10. So basically you’re saying he should have just ignored it? Maybe somewhat true, but not entirely. In this case that same thread would influence others notions of Byuu before talking to him, and lead to doxing of his friends when they couldn’t get to Byuu directly. What then? Even if he didn’t participate himself, the effects of such a thread we’re far reaching. And damaging to his name.

      Delete
    11. "Doxing", you say? That's a bit different than simply being called names, now isn't it? But I have to wonder how one becomes "doxxed". Through a real name? Through an IP address? Or perhaps someone who was once close to the person simply reveals all this information?
      Further, why would people bother with harassing the friends of a "target", much less "dox" them? That seems pointless and, honestly, cowardly. If someone has a problem with Person A, they shouldn't get Persons B, C, and D involved. Honestly, I don't think B, C, or D should get involved, themselves, but people loyal to Person A often do, so…

      In any case, damage to a person's name on the Internet should not prevent the person from continuing with their hobbies or everyday life. I mean, I absolutely love Michael Jackson's music, but I could not have cared less about him as a person. I never understood why people were so interested in the day-to-day activities and personal lives of the people who make their favorite stuff… And that's probably why I will never "understand" this situation.

      Delete
  7. Pretty disgusting that people on here are defending Kiwi Farms. Knew nothing about it before this and from what I've looked up, it's a pretty disgusting website.

    Didn't think I had to say this but mocking and harassing people online isn't funny. Especially vulnerable individuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously. I didn't think here of all places I'd need to respond to anyone. Imagine defending a website full of anonymous haters who are celebratory in the death of a person that they don't know and has likely done more for the world than they ever have. They have a history of targeting vulnerable individuals, this is documented. The funny part is I don't even necessarily believe that they are solely responsible for Near's death. But they certainly played a part.

      Delete
    2. This right here is a plain straight up example of emotions over logic. People cannot afford this especially in an age where people are encouraged to mobilize and cause harm to others based on appeals to emotion and not logic.

      To address the both of you directly a person can think Kiwi Farms is BOTH disgusting and being unfairly persecuted. In fact the people who claim Kiwi Farms harasses them/or others and Kiwi Farms posters themselves are similar to each other in a basic sense. The only difference is anyone can talk all the trash about Kiwi Farms all they want, label them all kinds of names, denigrate them and even lie about them to some degree, all Kiwi Farms' posters seem like they will do is either mock you back, try and debunk or refute the lie or entirely ignore the situation altogether. They WON"T address your service provider then accuse both you and them of murder by twisting the meaning of suicide in attempts to deplatform you and insight mob and law rule against you often times explicitly with the incitement of violence (actual violence, the physical kind not just words on the internet) accompanying it, DDoS your website so that people can't get the facts and have the support of major political movements, corporations and news outlets spread "their side" of the story with major omissions in one fell swoop. At least I don't see any evidence that they would do something like that. If you do have some evidence please provide it.

      Being mean and making fun of people is one thing, all that extra stuff tho, is another.

      Delete
    3. Being mean and making fun of people is bullying, and engaging in that kind of behavior always makes the world a more hostile and painful place for everyone. There is no such thing as benign bullying. Kiwi Farms has entire threads solely dedicated to insulting people who are just going about their lives not bothering anyone, for no reason other than malice. It does not deserve to be defended.

      Delete
    4. Since you're rambling incoherently without giving any evidence yourself yet requesting it, where is "the incitement of violence" and "major omissions"? The other question is why do you care about Kiwi Farms being persecuted period? On many websites covering this story there is an influx of new users attempting to protect Kiwi Farms reputation, and I'm inclined to believe that you can only be from there judging from all your posts. I think anyone with even a halfway decent sense of morality would prefer the site be removed for good. And if you haven't looked at their content, you should before discussing them.

      Delete
    5. "I think anyone with even a halfway decent sense of morality would prefer the site be removed for good. And if you haven't looked at their content, you should before discussing them."
      Have you been to their thread about this Twitter meltdown regarding Near? Have you seen any evidence that he's dead other than Hector Martin, who posted the Google doc by an "anonymous" friend? Did you stop to question the likelihood that he could "call the police department in charge of the investigation", as he claimed, and that they would "confirm" that Near is dead (even though Hector claimed not to have Near's real name, and even though that's not information Japanese police would freely offer over the phone to a foreign stranger)?

      Delete
    6. "I think anyone with even a halfway decent sense of morality would prefer the site be removed for good. And if you haven't looked at their content, you should before discussing them."
      Well, have you been to their thread about this Twitter meltdown regarding Near?
      Have you seen any evidence that he's dead other than Hector Martin, who posted the Google doc by an "anonymous" friend?
      Did you stop to question the likelihood that he could "call the police department in charge of the investigation", as he claimed, and that they would "confirm" that Near is dead (even though Hector claimed not to have Near's real name, and even though that's not information Japanese police would freely offer over the phone to a foreign stranger)?
      Do you think it's not at all strange that Near told the owner of Kiwifarms that a friend of his would post his full name shortly after he died, and that this never happened?

      These aren't conspiracy theories dreamed up by people who just hated Byuu for whatever reason and are "celebrating" his death, as you put it. I've been around the emulation community a long time, and I respect Byuu. These are genuine questions that need to be addressed, because as far as I can see, the evidence here that someone really took their life does not even come close to passing muster, and it's not insensitive to question anonymous sources and alleged phone calls to Japanese police. This is the internet where anyone can say anything.

      Delete
    7. So even though you addressed nothing of what I said, keep changing your name, and respond with a question that has nothing to do with what you quoted from me, I'll answer. Let's assume that yes, this is all an elaborate hoax and Near is not actually dead (even though Hector Martin has credibility and would be destroying his entire reputation itself to post fake information). So what? If this has been an orchestrated attack on Kiwi Farms, can you blame him? If said thread causes him that much pain? An essential compilation of what he may feel are the parts of him he regrets or doesn't like, for the entire world to see when they google him? And so I ask you again: Why do you care so much about what happens to Kiwi Farms? For all I know you're Joshua Moon himself, someone close to him, or an avid user from there. It doesn't make sense for a decent human being to look at that website and care more about the resulting actions of Near's suicide on it, than the actions of the website on Near, which happened first.

      Delete
    8. @Anonymous 30, 2021 at 6:00 PM:

      Wow, people have completely lost their way... Sad. I am not rambling incoherently you are just lashing out at me because you are attached to what I am more and more convinced is (no offense) an evil cause.

      When I request evidence it is not to spite/or some backhanded thing, I genuine will shift my opinion based on it. No one requested evidence from me, I assumed it was a giving considering this sort of thing is prevalent on sites like twitter but here is one, that I can barely show because Kiwi Farms is down and is the place providing that linked to the source, in any case it is the second post of this page outlining this Twitter user for context (so an argument doesn't occur arguing something like it was in jest or not serious or something) https://archive.vn/p5h2a then continue to the bottom of this page for the explicit incitement https://archive.vn/hQmJi.

      Also what are you talking about? By the very essence of calling people murderers and trying to set a serious precedent of making someone responsible for murder in particular (I don't think I need evidence for this but will provide it if requested) from a suicide, you are by definition inciting violence on them. What in the heck do you think happens to murderers in terms of the law???

      "Why do you care about Kiwi Farms being persecuted period?"

      What???? Because I have a soul! This has just got to be the prime example of how corrupt people's moral compasses have become. Because if you can literally disregard truth and ethics in pursuit of the destruction of you enemies to this degree... I am not trying to be mean but I cannot put it in any other way than that being bad and people who subscribe to that as not being good.

      "On many websites covering this story there is an influx of new users attempting to protect Kiwi Farms reputation"

      If by reputation you mean protecting the rights of groups to function without others trying to directly deplatform them based on misinfo and straight up trying to make them out to be murderers with absolutely no grounding to back that up then yes I agree with those people.

      If by reputation you mean Kiwi Farms as this nice place full of people not being mean, no I do not agree with those people. I haven't ever even seen someone like that not in this entire comment section anyway.

      "and I'm inclined to believe that you can only be from there judging from all your posts."

      I only ever posted twice on this comment section. Don't confuse me with another Anon. Be inclined to think whatever you want but I am telling you I've only ever heard of Kiwi Farms from this news. My first time visiting the site was because of Tiny Proto, and me trying to evaluate things in a fair way. take that as you will.

      "I think anyone with even a halfway decent sense of morality would prefer the site be removed for good."

      You are conflating feelings and logic like I stated before, what I prefer is not what should determine convicting murderers, people being murderers is what should get them treated like murderers. What I prefer should not be what determines service providers cut off support for a website, equally distributed and applied terms of service agreements should.

      "if you haven't looked at their content, you should before discussing them."

      I have only read up on and visited the specific thread related to Near, but it was enough to, I think, give me a general idea of the place. Yes I will agree that the place is pretty grimy (to put it nicely) and I personally do not want places like that to exist. The difference is I will try and make that happen by spreading positivity, not feeding into that community and doing my one thing in hopes of more people becoming less like them through that, not with underhanded tactics. This is not to say that if provided with legitimate evidence of harassment and doxing or some sort of truly punishable offense I wouldn't be for the take down of those involved.







      Delete
    9. @AnonymousJune 30, 2021 at 2:58 PM

      "Being mean and making fun of people is bullying, and engaging in that kind of behavior always makes the world a more hostile and painful place for everyone. There is no such thing as benign bullying. Kiwi Farms has entire threads solely dedicated to insulting people who are just going about their lives not bothering anyone, for no reason other than malice"

      I mostly agree although I do not claim to know the grand workings of life.

      "It does not deserve to be defended."

      Disagreed, I think certain things should always be defended and in this specific case it is not Kiwi Farms, it's truth itself and by extension where Kiwi Farms lays in it.

      Delete
    10. "in any case it is the second post of this page outlining this Twitter user for context (so an argument doesn't occur arguing something like it was in jest or not serious or something) https://archive.vn/p5h2a then continue to the bottom of this page for the explicit incitement https://archive.vn/hQmJi."

      There is no "incitement of violence" on either page. The tweets (both from the same person) say that "kiwifarms users deserve to be hanged". They're allowed to feel this way, and does not indicate any threat of actual follow up action. Let alone the fact that the ones who harassed Near haven't been doxxed themselves, making this reality an impossibility. It's merely an expression of opinion. The other tweet states they will get KF sued for various acts, which is also well within their rights. It's actually non violent and legal if anything. This is a strange thing for you to be concerned about.

      "If by reputation you mean protecting the rights of groups to function without others trying to directly deplatform them based on misinfo and straight up trying to make them out to be murderers with absolutely no grounding to back that up then yes I agree with those people."

      Where is the misinfo? Byuu said his friends were doxxed, because they couldn't get info on Byuu himself, thus making them distance themselves from him. You realize the playing field is not level at all right? If you "had a soul" like you claim to do, you'd get this. Directly proving that your anonymous harassers and doxers come from any website is a very difficult if not impossible thing to do.

      "My first time visiting the site was because of Tiny Proto, and me trying to evaluate things in a fair way"
      Makes sense, given you both have awful, trash level takes of what's actually happened here. As if the literal text on Kiwi Farms error page is the objective truth of the situation and hasn't been twisted at all.

      "You are conflating feelings and logic like I stated before, what I prefer is not what should determine convicting murderers, people being murderers is what should get them treated like murderers. What I prefer should not be what determines service providers cut off support for a website, equally distributed and applied terms of service agreements should."

      But nobody has tried anybody there for murder, so what exactly are you going on about? If you're talking about people's attitudes towards KF after this news, they have a right to feel what they do given the information in front of them. Their service provider has also not shut them down. And again, I've not even said that I believe they are necessarily the main perpetrator's of his death. Nor do I believe the DDoS is necessary or will be effective long-term(but understandable). I DID say though, that it is strange to defend them to this degree. You seem to be more concerned with the methods being used for people getting what they want, rather than the net benefit of the resulting actions. Judicial intervention for cyberbullying is considered lax, so if users have to resort to as you put it, "underhanded tactics", I can hardly blame them if law enforcement can't do a thing.

      Delete
    11. "So even though you addressed nothing of what I said, keep changing your name, and respond with a question that has nothing to do with what you quoted from me, I'll answer."

      I'm not the Anon dude you were talking to before, but uh... keep assuming that I am?

      "If this has been an orchestrated attack on Kiwi Farms, can you blame him? If said thread causes him that much pain? An essential compilation of what he may feel are the parts of him he regrets or doesn't like, for the entire world to see when they google him?"

      All I'm doing--all many people are doing--is asking questions instead of taking anonymous claims at face value. You say the thread was causing him pain, but did you ever look at the thread yourself? Did you see where he said that he misjudged the Kiwifarms community, called them alright, and basically said he wasn't bothered by the thread? It was claimed that he was doxxed there. He wasn't. NOW someone came out with a name, which I won't write here for obvious reasons, but it leads to finding out that he has a husband, which leads to (what I think is) a fair question: if you were married and you left a suicide note on Twitter, would you not mention your spouse anywhere? Would the spouse himself not comment at any point? Would the anonymous friend who wrote the Google Doc not spare a single word in condolence to Near's widowed husband?

      "It doesn't make sense for a decent human being to look at that website and care more about the resulting actions of Near's suicide on it, than the actions of the website on Near, which happened first."

      I think whether Near is alive or not is more important than either of those. And I still feel hopeful that he is because Twitter friends who only say to please stop looking into this story don't inspire me with confidence that something happened, newspaper reports or police reports do. It's been four days and we have neither... just the word of someone on Twitter, and not a single word from Near's husband or family.

      Delete
    12. @AnonymousJuly 1, 2021 at 4:20 AM

      "There is no "incitement of violence" on either page."

      Incitement Definition: -the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.-Oxford Languages

      Incite by merriam-webster -to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on-

      Incitement has nothing to do with treating people directly, it is clearly defined as encouraging the threat. nice selective editing by the way. That person clearly stated and I quote "remember that kiwifarms users deserve to be han*(asterisk implying a g)ed or at least put on a list (implying federal watch list) because we all know the moment they don't have their website they'll do a mass shooting". How can you have an opinion on someone you know will commit a mass shooting? To label people a deadly threat then say they deserve to be murdered before they can enact said threat is the very core of incitement to violence. You are absolutely in denial if you do not see that.

      "(both from the same person)"

      Yeah I explicitly said as much. The first link wasn't to prove incitement to violence, it was to show that the person who actually did incite violence was serious in tone, so that you didn't come back and say it was just joking around when I gave you the second link with the actual evidence. In other words the first link was there to provide context to the second, not to be used as a separate instance of incitement.

      "Let alone the fact that the ones who harassed Near haven't been doxxed themselves"

      A good way to get that to happen is to have them put on a federal list I'll tell you that much, or at least give the people working on it the info that they need to pursue them.

      "It's merely an expression of opinion."

      No a "mere" expression of an opinion is 'I hate that site and the people on it' not something akin to 'remember folks if you don't kill them they'll kill you, just sayin'.

      "The other tweet states they will get KF sued for various acts"

      Yeah I know, it was to illustrate the mind frame and serious nature of the individual involved. In other words, again, used for context.

      "Where is the misinfo?"

      For one trying to convince people that KiwiFarms murdered Near by way of excessive harassment and doxing, based on absolutely no evidence, with even evidence to the contrary. Evidence BTW I only see one side presenting or even willing to present on that matter.

      "Makes sense, given you both have awful, trash level takes of what's actually happened here. As if the literal text on Kiwi Farms error page is the objective truth of the situation and hasn't been twisted at all."

      You lash out, make stuff up and completely mischaracterize arguments and say I am the one babbling incoherently? I'll address one of those let's say "arguments" by saying I did not base my opinions on one page, let alone an error page.

      Continue-














      Delete
    13. -Continue

      "But nobody has tried anybody there for murder, so what exactly are you going on about?"

      "Their service provider has also not shut them down."

      I am going on about people trying to get other people tried for murder. Is that concept hard for you to conceive? An analogy would be someone trying to murder some other innocent person but hasn't, just because the attempted murderer hasn't murdered yet, does that mean I will support their efforts? No. The answer is No.

      "they have a right to feel what they do given the information in front of them."

      It has nothing to do with feels don't you understand? If it ended at feels my argument ends.

      "I've not even said that I believe they are necessarily the main perpetrator's of his death."

      Others do, the very person who wrote the letter used in this news post's twitter link does. The fact that you think this and still support such unethical behavior is even worse behavior still.

      "Nor do I believe the DDoS is necessary or will be effective long-term(but understandable)"

      I don't care about effectiveness in this context, I care about it being wrong and to a lesser extent illegal.

      "You seem to be more concerned with the methods being used for people getting what they want, rather than the net benefit of the resulting actions."

      I care about both equally!

      "Judicial intervention for cyberbullying is considered lax, so if users have to resort to as you put it, "underhanded tactics", I can hardly blame them"

      And that is the difference between you and me, I will never subscribe to your warped sense of morality and will fight against it ever chance I get, while trying to hold on to honor, integrity and good ethical standards doing so.

      Delete
    14. @AnonymousJuly 1, 2021 at 7:55 PM

      I'm not the one you're replying to, but you do realize that your entire argument which you base on "good" ethical standards, is entirely "feeling" and "subjective"? Legality does not equal morality, and it never has. Your stubbornness to argue for your own self appointed idea of righteousness is unbelievably naive.

      Delete
    15. @Anonymous 4:39 AM:

      If you believe that, you haven't been following the arguments. No where was it stated people should not express emotion or follow a moral idea or be ethical;.

      What was argued was to believe a claim and narrative about people, there needs to be something showing proof of it. This is the point being made by both Matt and "righteous" Anon.

      It makes sense too, since people can't just accuse others of things just because they don't like them for doing other unrelated things. That is manipulation as a means to taking your enemies down as an end. It is impractical because those same means can be used against any person innocent or not, like them or don't like them. So it is unsustainable as a mean because it destroys the goal of the end. That is the crux of their argument.

      It is "unbelievably naive" to assume people can throw out ethics and not have that come back to bite them. In my opinion of course. Just my two cents. Be nice please.

      Delete
    16. I think this argument has derailed to some degree, so I'll just address what I believed were the main points of contention and anything left over.

      After originally stating "Imagine defending...", it seems Anon who has an issue with the methods being used for "deplatformation", we simply have a different opinion on how things should be handled. You prefer if KF has to be taken down, it be done either the "right" or "legal" way, whatever that means or is to you. You say I've "mischaracterized arguments", yet you've cherry picked the points you've wanted to respond to. Not once have you said anything about the fact that the playing field is nonlevel. You expect there to be a proper and ethical way for this to be resolved, and it most likely doesn't exist given how the site is protected. This is the internet, the wild west. To think otherwise I would agree is naive. But you don't have to be worry.

      Nothing will happen to KF, at least not anytime soon. I simply find it odd to care more for due process an entire website, when that hasn't been afforded to it's targets. "Do the benefits of KF existing outweigh the negatives?" is still something that hasn't been answered. Your moral views on vigilantism is neither here nor there. Because it doesn't matter, it might take another half dozen or dozen suicides before there is any headway anyways, if that.

      My original point, is that regardless of what KF did or didn't do to Near, I just find comments like this WEIRD and made in bad faith:

      "Tiny ProtoJune 28, 2021 at 9:19 AM
      Near tried to bribe the owner of KiwiFarm"

      Depends how you see it. I see it less of a bribe and more of a desperate plea to someone who feels powerless against a reputation influenced by KF.

      "Tiny ProtoJune 28, 2021 at 4:35 PM
      Documenting, not doxing. Users are encouraged not to interact with the people discussed."

      Yet said documentation increases chance of interaction whether intentional or not. Direct testimony supporting this: https://archive.vn/R1oRN#selection-1633.1-1633.6

      Further sources of doxing: https://web.archive.org/web/20190511184633/http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html

      There is a history of this happening there.

      "I mostly agree although I do not claim to know the grand workings of life."

      What? What do the grand workings of life have to do with anything?

      My initial comments had nothing to do with the persecution of KF, just rather that I found it strange to care about that immediately because it's blowing up now, instead of the slow buildup of harassment and attacks they've done over the years. Did YOU not think it would come back to them, since you speak of ethics? Anonymously documenting strangers lives (and just the parts that are easily targetable) is also morally dubious in itself.

      "Incite by merriam-webster..."

      Thanks for that definition, yes, activity has been incited. Not violence however as you claim. Also again, it's hardly relevant given the users of KF are once again, shrouded under the veil of anonymity. Nobody even knows Joshua Moon's location. Ergo, nothing will happen.

      Delete
    17. (cont.)
      As for the rest...

      "Did you see where he said that he misjudged the Kiwifarms community, called them alright, and basically said he wasn't bothered by the thread? It was claimed that he was doxxed there. He wasn't."

      Yes, I did see that. However, I believe this calls for reading between the lines. This is solely my own opinion, but I believe Near justifies himself to the users of KF to that degree simply because he wants them to stop seeing him as an "lolcow" and potentially remove the thread naturally. This doesn't happen, thus the nuclear option which is what we just saw. As for the doxxing, again it was claimed this was done by KF users offsite to his friends. We likely won't get direct evidence of this, but I also do not see why he would lie. He may be misinformed, but again, there is no visible benefit to that thread existing unless anyone posting here can say otherwise.

      "NOW someone came out with a name, which I won't write here for obvious reasons, but it leads to finding out that he has a husband, which leads to (what I think is) a fair question: if you were married and you left a suicide note on Twitter, would you not mention your spouse anywhere?"

      Near lived alone, and if he did have a husband the nature of thier relationship is none of our business. I also never said the circumstances of his death weren't strange. I believe the list of deceased US nationals living in Japan is updated every 6 months, so you will get your direct proof in due time. Regardless, the Near persona as we know him is dead either way.

      "It makes sense too, since people can't just accuse others of things just because they don't like them for doing other unrelated things. That is manipulation as a means to taking your enemies down as an end. It is impractical because those same means can be used against any person innocent or not, like them or don't like them. So it is unsustainable as a mean because it destroys the goal of the end. That is the crux of their argument."

      I agree that sort of thing can set a bad precedent. But there is nothing "unrelated" about believing KF is responsible for murder and having either the site or users/owner take some responsibility for it. Obviously you don't have to believe they are, seeing as how clearly Near was dealing with his own issues as well. But you can believe they played a part. If this were an isolated incident it would be one thing, but again, check their history. It can't be argued the thread did not bother him to any degree at all, and Joshua Moon was faced with a choice to keep another human on a desperate edge or let "documentation" continue to exist for all to see with barely any beneficial purpose. Instead he makes it about "extortion", as if that is the crux of the issue and not the content he's hosting.

      Delete
    18. (cont.)

      Protodude himself describes Near as a "kind, caring human-being" and a "victim of relentless, unflinching cyber bullying." It is unlike him to be uninformed, and can only say that having spoken to him. There is already bullying in the KF thread, so it can't be denied their existence factually had a part in his death.

      'It is "unbelievably naive" to assume people can throw out ethics and not have that come back to bite them. In my opinion of course.'

      Said naivety is only being further demonstrated with statements like that. Believing everybody gets what's coming to them based on their ethical behavior is not absolute and I certainly hope you don't think it is. People do in fact get away with murder, and live happily ever after. Not everybody will get their just desserts, and nobody should have to be harmed first until they do. Kiwi Farms will in all likelihood damage more individuals, before they are taken down the "right" way.

      ---

      And with that, this is my last post on Near here. Simply for the reason that it's been almost a week and I'm not sure this debate is progressing anywhere. The messiness of the different anons/users posting doesn't help and the various points are getting extrapolated. Just felt the need to share my thoughts after seeing quite a few of the responses here as baffling. I don't want anybody to undermine the effect of attacking or insulting anybody else, even on the internet.

      Rest in peace, Near/Byuu, your contributions will be remembered as timeless.

      Delete
    19. "Believing everybody gets what's coming to them based on their ethical behavior is not absolute and I certainly hope you don't think it is. People do in fact get away with murder, and live happily ever after. Not everybody will get their just desserts"

      I'm the anon that said the statement of which this ^ was responding to. Just to try and make that Anon stuff less confusing.

      Anyway, that is not what I meant, you can tell that is not what I meant because you yourself refereed to precedent.

      You make it seem like I am referring to individual cases and that everything is always clear cut. That is literally the opposite of what I am saying.

      I can believe people get away with murder but I don't think there was ever a case where someone blatantly murdered someone else by shooting them point blank clearly in public full of witnesses and surveillance, fully admitting to intentionally doing so with flimsy reasoning like not liking the person they killed, then get away with it by going about their normal routine in society.

      If you are going to have examples of people getting away with murder (of innocent lives) it is because they either didn't get convicted in court (which is based on evidence proving guilt at least in a fair justice system) because they've deliberated and couldn't come to a guilty verdict, thus upholding their innocents by extension at least based on the evidence presented. Physically avoided the law and justice system by hiding out in some remote place, becoming anonymous or having too much power and being able to avoid consequences. Point is it is not because a bunch of people are justifying the murder and saying it is a mean to an end, especially if the murder is based on previously nonviolent hardly threatening actions on the part of the victim.

      BTW I am not saying being unethical doesn't exist and is not sometimes the proper move. All I am saying is the open support of it and blatant enacting of it is like you said setting a bad precedent, one hard to recover from and one which will lead to far worse outcomes. Not believing that it will is what I am calling very naive.

      Just making myself clear not trying to start an argument.

      Delete
  8. Well this comment section turned crap...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of expected it to, honestly. Not for the controversy, though. Rather, a lot of people don't care about the "people" behind a project. They just care about the projects.

      No disrespect to Protodude or the people who run ROMhacking.net, but this kind of news was probably best left to chat servers and gaming publications. But, Protodude and the RHN folks very specifically and clearly explain why it was posted to these places, so… yeah.

      Delete
    2. I for one was very pleasantly surprised to learn Byuu had anything to do with Phantom of Network, wasn't expecting that at all :D

      Delete
    3. Seems like Near, alongside Kiwifarms is the subject of the conversation and not the project so I'm not so sure about the whole "not caring about the people behind the project" deal...

      Delete
  9. May you rest in peace, Near.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've never taken any formal journalism classes, but I don't think "died" is the proper vernacular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean what would you rather have passed, deceased, dead. i think died works perfectly fine tbh.

      Delete

Keep it friendly. Disparaging, belittling and derogatory comments are not permitted.