  Legislators and policymakers worldwide are debating options for suppressing
illegal, harmful and undesirable material online. Drawing on several
quantitative data sources, we show that deplatforming an active community to
suppress online hate and harassment, even with a substantial concerted effort
involving several tech firms, can be hard. Our case study is the disruption of
the largest and longest-running harassment forum Kiwi Farms in late 2022, which
is probably the most extensive industry effort to date. Despite the active
participation of a number of tech companies over several consecutive months,
this campaign failed to shut down the forum and remove its objectionable
content. While briefly raising public awareness, it led to rapid platform
displacement and traffic fragmentation. Part of the activity decamped to
Telegram, while traffic shifted from the primary domain to previously abandoned
alternatives. The forum experienced intermittent outages for several weeks,
after which the community leading the campaign lost interest, traffic was
directed back to the main domain, users quickly returned, and the forum was
back online and became even more connected. The forum members themselves
stopped discussing the incident shortly thereafter, and the net effect was that
forum activity, active users, threads, posts and traffic were all cut by about
half. Deplatforming a community without a court order raises philosophical
issues about censorship versus free speech; ethical and legal issues about the
role of industry in online content moderation; and practical issues on the
efficacy of private-sector versus government action. Deplatforming a dispersed
community using a series of court orders against individual service providers
appears unlikely to be very effective if the censor cannot incapacitate the key
maintainers, whether by arresting them, enjoining them or otherwise deterring
them.
