> the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal"
What's so "scumbag" in trying to rely on the law and law enforcement for getting rid of bad and harmful things? I'm a normal citizen, I'm perfectly happy to leave the judgement to the courts. Am I a scumbag because of this?
Doxxing and serious harassment (probably depending on how "serious" it is, IANAL) are crimes though? Why isn't there a court order to shut down the site? Why did the site die at the hands of Internet vigilantes instead of being properly executed after a trial? Is law enforcement inept enough that it needs help from random activists, coordinating a Twitter/Facebook/WhatHaveYou campaign to convince some influential people to act? Why the same influential people were not told to act by a court? There's something wrong here...
Either "censorship is (in general) bad", or "only a select few should be able to fight against it". That's one thing.
Another: there's law that already prohibits publishing some of the content deemed harmful. Like that law or not, it's there. The OP stresses that his web sites do not break the law. I'm not a lawyer nor KF user, so I wouldn't know, but what's so wrong with letting the courts decide? I'm sure that law enforcement and judiciary are capable enough to handle complaints about the content. They sure do when the content is copyrighted...
The paradox you're mentioning hinges on the assumption that KiwiFarms & similar are actually intolerant, or rather, their continued existence is a threat to the tolerant society/tolerance in the society. Is that really true? I don't know, but I don't think so. How can a tiny community of maybe a few thousands (or tens of thousands?) ever be any kind of threat to the tolerance of a society of hundreds of millions of people? They can be a threat to individuals, but then we're back to previous point: such threats are best dealt with by the courts and police.
One tweet from former US President - just one, maybe even any one, out of hundreds of thousands - would be a much bigger threat to tolerant society than all the KiwiFarms of the Internet taken together. That person had literally tens of millions of followers, and what he published incited riots not seen in a long time. Did KF ever cause anything close to that scale? If not, how exactly are they a threat to "tolerant society"?
Again: not a user, never seen KF before the recent KF vs. Keffars (IIRC), didn't read or see anything else on the site. I'm just reacting to you essentially saying that people should be unable to host and publish things you, personally, find offending and harmful. I don't like that content either, but I exercise my right to not look at it. If it's really harmful enough to the society to warrant "deplatforming" (or whatever you want to call it) then it's OK to bring their case to the court. The judge or jury will decide, and if they find the content actually harmful and against the law, they will issue a warrant and make the content disappear.
> Why wouldn't I be able to run GTK apps on their ICE powered desktop?
Of course you would be able to, just don't expect the theming to match, the menus to have similar structures, dialogs having buttons in predictable places, etc.
> isn't the purpose of WASM to make possible in web environments that which is possible on desktop environments?
I don't think so. I think this is the purpose of all the new Web APIs more than WASM. The sandboxing and the inability to call out to the system is crippling for GUIs in WebAssembly. It works well if you control the drawing and are able to output raw data to a <canvas>, but it's a hassle. WASM works the best for things like opencv or dlib, but I think the GUI for the apps compiled to WASM will need to be written in JS for quite some time, if not forever.
What's so "scumbag" in trying to rely on the law and law enforcement for getting rid of bad and harmful things? I'm a normal citizen, I'm perfectly happy to leave the judgement to the courts. Am I a scumbag because of this?