First, please admonish your private investigator affilliated pal SDM up there for attempting to associate me with nazis and white supremacists.
SDM opined that your claims sound like antisemitic, white-supremacists conspiracy theories. He didn’t say anything about Nazis, specifically. At any rate, stating unflattering opinions about the things you say isn’t the same as claiming someone is a chatbot or working with the ADL or silencing people, and as far as this discussion is concerned, it seems to me like you started name-calling first.
You seem to be hesitant to call out anyone but me for such blatantly hystrionic false statements, and in so doing, discredit yourself and the purported community here that you have on multiple occasions claimed to speak for.
I’ve called out blue, bobmail, Hamilton (who is probably also either blue or bobmail), tp, zof, and a number of ACs—among others—for making “blatantly h[i]strionic false statements” on numerous occasions, and I’ve also called out several individuals that I normally agree with when I see a problem with what they say. That you haven’t personally observed that isn’t really my problem, and you can verify it for yourself by viewing my TD profile.
In this case, SDM’s comment doesn’t really make any blatantly false claims without evidence, as far as I can tell. It’s mostly an opinion about your claims, not really something that could be proven or disproven. Now, whether or not I agree with his opinion (and if so, to what extent) is another question entirely. Suffice to say that I’m taking no position on whether you or your claims are actually antisemitic and/or white-supremacist beyond noting that drawing that conclusion is, at the very least, not completely unreasonable or unjustifiable, given how much you talk about these zionists conspiring to silence criticism and such. As I take no position on the matter, I feel no need to argue with or support SDM on that particular matter.
“Do you have any evidence that anyone in thread was a real person?”
No. Only myself, the individual being attacked by a faux collective
Are we reading the same thread? I’m talking about the 2013 thread you linked. In that thread, I didn’t see anyone attacking anyone who I would believe to be you. On the contrary, there were a lot of strangely similar comments that seemed to be supporting your claims, and almost all of them came long after everyone else had stopped posting. So, if you believe you were the only real person on that thread, does that mean all those people claiming to be victims of online gang-stalking were either fake or a sockpuppet for you?
“Do you have any evidence that you are a real person?”
Yes. I just finished a delicious bowl of home made beef burgundy stew. Then I took two fabulous shits, while reading your comment. A coincidence, of course.
Well, I just had some steak I had leftover from dinner last night, so I guess that’s sufficient evidence that I’m a real person, too.
Look, my point was for you to provide the same sort of evidence that you’re asking of me, if not just realize how dumb this line of inquiry is.
“Do you have any evidence that anyone was stalked or harassed solely because of their activity on that particular thread?”
Yes. Screenshots, deleted comments, and the fact that TDs mod actually IP blocked me, and is currently running code to stop me from opening comments hidden by TDs laughably monitored, speech policed, and bot infested “community” forum.
Is that so? Would you mind showing the rest of us this evidence of yours? Because you’re making some pretty wild claims without offering any verifiable evidence that supports them. I don’t think that TD even has something that could “IP block[]” you, especially considering the fact that, as far as I can tell, you’ve constantly changed IP addresses from the start, so it seems pretty darn ineffective.
As for being unable to view hidden comments, that’s simply false. The only thing that would prevent you from doing so is if you were using some sort of script-blocker or something. TD has been accused of this before, and it’s never panned out.
Thats evidence enough, none of which you are privvy too.
The problem is that if I’m not privvy to any of the evidence supporting your claims, I have no reason to believe you or take you seriously. In fact, the fact that you claim to have evidence and choose to deliberately withhold it suggests to me that you don’t actually have evidence and are just making it up. I’m not saying that’s the case, but you’re not exactly doing yourself any favors here.
As the spies, spergs (a curious phenomenon of your generation)and ADL-NGO so-called rationalists and secular humanists frequently say absence of evidence is only evidence of absence
Uh, no. First of all, is the ADL secular or Zionist? Pick one.
Second, autism has been around for centuries. It just wasn’t until recently that we became able to properly diagnose and treat autism, but it’s not necessarily more prevalent this generation than any other; just more apparent because we no longer shove people who don’t fit in into mental institutions and the internet makes it easier for introverts (which many autistic people are) to interact with large numbers of people.
Third, I’m an agnostic Christian/deist, not a secular humanist (though I have nothing against secular humanists or secular humanism in general), and if you have a problem with rationalists, then that says a lot more about you than it does about them. (But seriously, why do you thing that secular humanists and rationalists are conspiring with zionists and the ADL against you?)
Finally, you’ve misstated the fallacy. It’s “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Pretty much the opposite of what you’re claiming. Now, it’s true that Hitchen’s Razor says to disregard without evidence that which is asserted without evidence, but Hitchen’s Razor doesn’t say that lacking evidence is proof that the assertion is necessarily false; merely that it’s not worth further discussion without some evidence. You’re also misapplying them here; the claim being asserted (without evidence) is that pretty much everyone here besides you is an AI chatbot; the default assumption is that we’re all human. It’s your job to give evidence to refute that assumption if you want to be taken seriously here.
I have ZERO evidence that you are real anymore than CIA/JTRIG /FBI /ADL /Israeli Squad 8200 manipulated personas are real
You sort of do, as I point out later, but I agree that “CIA/JTRIG /FBI /ADL /Israeli Squad 8200 manipulated personas“ aren’t real… though you haven’t exactly shown that they exist at all, anyways (outside of possibly a few select instances, if that), and—again—the assumption is that someone is a real person rather than a chatbot or whatever.
And these days, considering that the USA has suspended its constitution, evil is as evil does; no harm no foul when in fact and reality, my own countrymen are all spies against their own neighbors.
While there are a number of efforts to undermine many aspects of the Constitution, it hasn’t actually been suspended. Nor do I see evidence of spying countrymen like you claim.
because validation of how private contractors, NGOs, and surveillance role players deliberately wage these hate campaigns aka psychiatric reprisals aka gang stalking on individuals is gaining in cultural currency, without you or other timesuckers and ritual defamers lifting a finger on your keyboard.
That’s great and all, except I fail to see why you’d do so here, and I’ve yet to see evidence of any growing awareness at all.
Lastly, in re: allies, well they know who they are. I dont need more than Ive got already, and certainly I dont want timesuckers to train for free.
Then I really don’t understand your goal here. If you aren’t trying to educate anyone, you aren’t trying to persuade anyone, and you’re not trying to find allies, then quite frankly, this isn’t the place for you to have this discussion. If you’re trying to validate others’ experiences or something, this isn’t an echo chamber or safe space for you or alleged victims of gang-stalking to find solace. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this isn’t really the place for you.
If you have no intention of spreading awareness or sympathy or action from outsiders, then please leave. You’re wasting everyone’s time by posting your stuff here if that’s your goal. Try somewhere else, perhaps. Make a Facebook page or a Twitter account or a subreddit or your own web page or something; make your own place to give these people the place they need.
I don’t come here to get validation from other autistic people. As far as I can tell, I’m the only one here, anyways. Nor do I post here to give other autistic people any sort of validation. If I want to do that, I’ll do so somewhere else where it makes sense to do so.
And if you think I’m just a timesucker, there’s an easy way to handle that: just ignore me. Quite frankly, if you don’t think that any good will come from further interactions from me, well, no one is forcing you to respond to my comments. If I’m wasting your time, it’s only because you let me.
In fact, approximately 30% of the last group of fake targeted individuals I met offline had these three things in common:
• they were rats, snitches, and informants working off a criminal charge
Well, since I have never had to go to court or jail at all and have never been arrested or anything, and you have no evidence that would disprove that, I definitely don’t fit in that camp.
• they had Deviant Art profiles that looked EXACTLY like yours
That’s interesting. So they all have favorited thousands of works and had their only creative contribution being a translation for someone else’s work? That’s incredible, in that I literally don’t find that claim to be at all credible.
And while we’re at it, do they also have a fanfiction.net account? Do they also play Angry Birds? Do they also have a GitHub account with a few codes made public? Do they also answer a bunch of questions on Quora, using an account linked to a Facebook account that provides a photo of them for the profile that everyone can see?
All of these were connections you observed, by the way.
• they operated in the SJW dialectic as fake SJWs, but also within the UFOs, aliens, and flat earth crowd too. Classic poluce state informants, one affilliated with the Asian FBI.
Well, let’s see. I don’t believe I’ve taken any public stance on UFOs or aliens, exactly; nor have I really had any interaction with the “true believers”. For what it’s worth, I neither believe nor disbelieve in aliens (I think it’s statistically fairly likely that there is some sort of life on at least one other planet somewhere in the vast universe, though I don’t believe there’s any good evidence proving that that’s the case), and I believe the vast majority—if not all—of the UFO claims are severely lacking in evidence and credibility. I’m pretty sure that I have been rather dismissive publicly of flat-earthers, though—again—I don’t believe I’ve had any actual interaction with any of them, online or offline.
As for SJWs, well, I’ve generally supported the more sensible ideas and approaches of those who try to combat prejudice, discrimination, and ignorance against those who aren’t white, straight, neurotypical, Christian cis-males, but I also try to combat the more extreme advocates, including Alex Mauer among others.
As for “the Asian FBI”, I was unaware that the entire continent of Asia had a single FBI agency to share among the various countries. That’s rather interesting. At any rate, I have had no interaction (at least as far as I’m aware) with any members of any Asian governments—former or current—at all. I only know a little Japanese that I picked up from anime and manga (though I can’t read kanji or kana, really) and a few select words of Chinese (though, again, I don’t know any of the Chinese characters outside of numerals); I don’t know any words in any of the other Asian languages, and I’ve never left the North American continent. I’ve certainly never been an informant for or affiliate of “the Asian FBI”.
So, really, this bullet point doesn’t fit me either. Seems like of the three things you mentioned, at most one of them could be said to describe me, and given all the evidence you found that you’re outright ignoring, I’d have to say that you have soundly failed to support your case.
Your types ALWAYS turn out to be infiltrators, collaborators, and back stabbers. Or, in this case, a 30％ chance magnified because of your two faced approach, and willingness to concur with, and collaborate with race baiting /flaming /derailing ACs, and now, race baiting SDM (who you never taken to task ).
Since you completely and utterly failed to describe “my type” in a way that would actually include me as an example, I haven’t actually concurred with those ACs (saying you shouldn’t tell them to kill themselves is not a concurrence), I’m not seeing any race baiting by SDM (unless you tread Jews as a race, but it still seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw even if I’m more hesitant about claiming the same), and I did take SDM to task when he suggested that someone else who commented should die, this statement doesn’t actually describe me at all, and you haven’t actually proven that calling me an AI chatbot or informant or whatever makes rational sense. (I’ve also criticized several commenters for drawing broad conclusions not yet in evidence, though I don’t always do so. That you don’t agree with my judgements and discretion is fine but ultimately irrelevant. In this case, while I don’t exactly agree with SDM on this specific issue, at least not entirely, I don’t see anything that deserves to be called out, either. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but I am not required to call people out just because you think there’s a problem with what they say if I don’t feel the same.) Really, the only thing you got right about me is that I have a DeviantArt account and that I have autism… things that are true of many other real people. I’m honestly perplexed where you got the stuff about criminal informants and aliens and such as having any relation to anything I’ve said or done, online or offline.
See, this is why you should be more careful about drawing conclusions based upon patterns you find. You’re more apt to draw conclusions that are completely false. Also, the “two-faced” descriptor seems to be a better fit for you considering the fact that you’ve gone back and forth about whether to treat SDM and I civilly or not; I’ve been fairly consistent, really.
Funny how you claim there’s no grand conspiracy in the same comment that essentially describes what many would consider a grand conspiracy. Well, whatever.
I don’t recall ever reading anything about Jews helping Hitler with the Holocaust, and I’m pretty sure the term “antisemitism” has been around for quite some time, likely predating WWII, but whatever. Whether or not that’s true has no effect on any other claims anyone else has made, so I suppose it doesn’t make that big of a difference here. Still, I’d like to see a citation for those claims.
As for “Zionist”, that term actually refers to members of a movement that started among Jews that advocated for them to return to the Middle East (specifically the original location of Israel) and make a Jewish-centric country there again. A large part of the idea was to escape from all the persecution they were experiencing in Europe (and later the Americas) since the Jewish Diaspora, especially since the Middle Ages. The term has likely evolved since then, but the core idea of having a country for Jews in the Holy Land (as they call it) still remains in the various iterations. It’s plausible that the term has also been co-opted by Jewish extremists as well, like you describe.
Now, you still haven’t provided any evidence of any of this “ADLification” or infiltration by the ADL, government agencies, etc., for the purpose of silencing anyone, and there are plenty of terrorists who were certainly not targeted by “zionists” as they never even mention Judaism. (One or two examples don’t really make a great sample set from which we can draw any conclusions.) That said, I must admit that I’m curious about the claim that this “ROGS analysis” of yours is “scientifically falsifiable” and “replicable”. Based on how you’ve responded to SDM and me at various times, it seems rather unreliable at actually detecting these patterns. After all, you’ve gone back and forth on whether we are chatbots, useful idiots, or rational people. Still, I’d like to see the documentation for this “replicable” “theorem” of yours so that others could, in fact, replicate it for testing purposes.
First of all, no one said anything about copyright just now, and that AC is almost certainly not SDM. No one, including that AC and SDM, has ever accused you of taking any side here or anywhere else regarding copyright, either. Not quite sure where you got that from, but let’s set that aside for now.
Now, I’m pretty sure that blue, aka out_of_the_blue, possibly aka Hamilton, among other aliases, has already been explained to you, but whatever. The short answer is that he is a known troll who generally takes the copyright maximalists’ side on everything. (I think he’s addressed other topics as well, though it’s always in opposition to the author of the article and fairly extreme.) He also tends to accuse so-called “zombie accounts” (accounts that remain dormant (in that they aren’t used to post any comments) for extended periods of time and then get used to post one or more new comments on a recent article) of being sockpuppets for the people running the site, saying the fact that they were suddenly used after such a long period of disuse is evidence of something suspicious. Additionally, he loves to tone-troll. He used to use an account under the name “out_of_the_blue”, but for the past several years he’s posted without logging in.
Regarding the thread from 2011, while no one’s sure what he expects to achieve by continually bringing it up, but essentially, he got all offended by something Tim Geigner posted in reply to one of his many nonsensical posts. Tim had decided to post random quotes from Obama’s book in reply to each of blue’s posts, basically trolling the troll, and one of those quotes was apparently so offensive to blue that he still hasn’t gotten over it and will randomly bring it up with a link to the comment that offended him so. He hasn’t done it for a while, but I definitely recall him doing so sometime in 2019, so it’s probably only a matter of time.
Now, I don’t think anyone is accusing you of having any actual association with blue or that you’d take his side on anything, really, but this AC probably was just making the point that the reason you included that link to that 2013 article in that comment as well probably won’t make any more sense to us than why blue keeps bringing up that thread from 2011.
Since you seem to love this sort of thing, I’ll use it against you. It’s pretty appropriate in this instance, anyway.
tl;dr Evidence, or GTFO
Do you have any evidence that anyone in thread was a real person? Do you have any evidence that you are a real person? Do you have any evidence that anyone was stalked or harassed solely because of their activity on that particular thread?
As for me being an AI chatbot, you seem to have been finding some decent evidence of my being a real person already.
Finally, this “ROGS analysis” does more to alienate potential allies than to do anything productive or persuasive.
Since you apparently don’t like long posts (despite the fact that your posts aren’t exactly short), I’ll keep this brief:
There is no rule—unspoken or otherwise—that says I can only respond in threads that I am mentioned in. FTR, I responded to this one due to it containing a link to a 2013 thread that was also linked to in a comment that did mention me multiple times. Regardless, people can respond in whatever threads they like. It’s not like you only ever post comments in threads that involve you, either, so you’re being a bit of a hypocrite here. Maybe you’re the AI chatbot.
I don’t actually care about using one name. Just that it undermines your argument when you, specifically, don’t do so. Seriously, that’s the sort of thing that makes one think they’re dealing with a troll or a chatbot.
You have the burden of proof regarding chatbots completely backwards. You have to provide evidence that someone is a chatbot, not proof that they aren’t.
I sympathize with any genuine victims of gang-stalkers and cyberstalking—organized or otherwise—if you are indicative of the sort of people who advocate on their behalf.
The insults regarding my autism have really gotten old. Don’t you have anything new—or, better yet, substantive—to offer? It’s getting really lame.
Yeah, that’s not how it works. Again, without evidence to prove otherwise, we assume that vaccines don’t cause autism. Plus, what would even be the cause of action here? Besides, the law doesn’t have any say in scientific facts. Vaccines don’t cause autism.
Lastly, how is this a “big win” for anyone other than the lawyers?
Seriously, though, even if there is a link, I find it offensive that you consider autism to be a bigger problem than the diseases vaccines are meant to prevent.
Maybe you should read the comments, because those claims were already refuted. Every single peer-reviewed study into potential links between vaccine and autism that was published in a respected medical journal or similar outlet and was not later retracted has failed to find any evidence of any possible link at all between vaccines and autism, let alone a causal one. Additionally, many particular possible theories of causation have explicitly been proven false or even impossible. We addressed the studies you mentioned; each of them either did not actually support the hypothesis that there is a link between vaccines and autism, did not go pass through peer-review or get published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, was later retracted, or were otherwise problematic. So no, there aren’t any studies that actually demonstrate such a link. We already discussed this. Why you think I didn’t read those comments despite the fact that you can just as easily find my replies to those comments is beyond me.
You have also not convinced me that vaccines causing autism is indicative in any way of declining health, nor have you established that health in the US is, in fact, declining at all (the coronavirus notwithstanding, in part because that has no connection to vaccines or autism), nor that such a decline could not be explained by the fact that vaccination rates are in decline in some parts of the US, nor that such a decline is, in fact, caused by vaccine use rather than some other factor wholly unrelated to vaccines. Basically, you haven’t given me a reason to think there’s anything to get to the bottom of or that there’s even a reasonable possibility that what’s at the bottom even involves problems with vaccines.
Also, if you are unwilling to spend an hour typing out an actual rebuttal, why in the world should I have to watch an hour-long video to find whatever flaws you think are in my argument? I only made roughly 7 points to begin with, and you say that only some of the points I made are deeply flawed, so why would it take an hour for you to type out a rebuttal? It took me less than fifteen minutes to actually type out those points. That you can’t be bothered to actually address anything I said isn’t my problem.
Finally, since when is Highwire a reliable source about medical information?
SDM is himself a verified derailer, and white supremacist, and Jewish supremacy apologist
[citation needed]
aka a useful idiot rewarded by Masnick himself.
When has Masnick ever rewarded derailers, white supremacists, or “Jewish[-]supremacy apologist[s]” at all, and when has he rewarded SDM (or anyone else, for that matter) for anything other than posting comments that were voted insightful and/or funny by the community or for posting large numbers of comments in a single year?
Not being pro-semitic does not equate with being anti-semitic.
I don’t think that was ever in dispute here… It’s also worth noting that being against and/or calling out antisemitism doesn’t equate either pro-semitism, either, nor does not being antisemitic equate with being pro-semitic. I’m really not sure what your point is here.
Scary Devil Monastery/Claus D. is a liar, and an AIPAC /ADL shill. He is also affilliated with web-stalking ptivate detectives.
Anything short of allegiance to his version of white supremacy kicks in his anti -semitic conspiracy theory.
Again, [citation needed]. Also, you clearly don’t understand what “white supremacy” means.
Its ritual defamation 101, straight out of the Kabbbalah.
“Ritual defamation” is not a thing, nor has SDM ever engaged in defamation, nor does what you’re accusing SDM of doing (without evidence, BTW) constitute defamation of any sort under US law.
Hilarious levels of paranoia, as TDs in-house trolls try to say thay I am every anonymous comment.
I don’t recall anyone having ever claimed that. In particular, SDM wasn’t accusing that AC of being you.
I ALWAYS post with identifiable language and monikers, and study the in-house troll format here.
Well, not always with the “identifiable[…]monikers” (though I’ve never observed you not using some sort of moniker whenever you post rather than the default name of “Anonymous Coward”; well, except this particular instance, which kinda undermines your claim here since, in this particular comment in which you make the claim you always use custom monikers, you aren’t using a custom moniker), and the bit where you say you “study the in-house troll format here” doesn’t actually support your case, but with the “identifiable language”… Well, I’ll get into that later. But, again, I don’t recall that being disputed.
I should note that you use a wide variety of monikers, and while at least a plurality include some variation of “ROGS”, that is frequently not the case. Additionally, you frequently change IP addresses (which can be observed by comparing the different colors and patterns of the square next to your moniker). Together, this makes identifying which comments are yours with absolute certainty a lot more complicated that it really should be, especially across threads. In fact, in many case, the only identifiable feature is the language used, but again, I’ll get into that later.
As for stones, SDM, you coward, it is well known that using a regular account on TD gets you cyberstalked here, and possibly turned over to their DoD affilliated speech police and their IP stalking harassers.
WTF?! I mean, [citation needed] for sure, but seriously, what in the world are you even talking about? Where did you even get that idea from? Lots of people who use regular accounts on TD don’t get cyberstalked, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that anyone gets turned over to “DoD[-]affiliated speech police” or “IP[-]stalking harassers”. Seriously, why the hell do you think that? When has that ever happened? It is most definitely not well-known, that’s for sure.
Also, even if that’s all true, how would that make using a regular account cowardly and not an act of guts, courage, or confidence? If anything, it sounds like you’re just proving SDM’s point: it “takes stones” to use a regular account to post, and the AC doesn’t have them. Now, if you’re trying to argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for one not to use a regular account, that’s fine (although your arguments in support of that leave something to be desired), but that still doesn’t exactly refute SDM’s point, either. The default moniker for posts from those not logged into an account is “Anonymous Coward” for a reason, you know, even if it’s at least partially tongue-in-cheek.
This all started when I affirmed the story of a guy who was gang stalked by a security contractor, in a white christian dominated area of the USA(Jeffrey Kantor, a Jewish guy, BTW ):
[link to a 2013 TD article]
Now, I actually address this thread in another comment, but I’ll address it here too. There are some other things I want to focus on regarding that here, anyways,
First of all, there is no evidence of anyone trolling, stalking, arguing with, flagging, criticizing, derailing, or misdirecting you (or anyone else discussing organized gang-stalking as a real thing, really) anywhere in that thread, nor was SDM involved with or mentioned in that thread at all. There were also no accusations (false, unjustified, or otherwise) that any two users (AC, monikered, or signed-in) were not two people posting separately from each other. Basically, none of the things you speak of in the rest of this comment could plausibly be alleged to have occurred—let alone started—in that thread at all, nor does that thread contain any evidence supporting any of the other claims in this comment. As such, this is a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with the rest of that comment or the comment it’s responding to.
Second, there is the strange fact that a large number of comments are oddly recent for something posted in the comment section of an article published in 2013. Some were as recent as October of 2019, nearly six years later. And essentially all of the late-coming posts are awfully similar in a number of ways and weren’t posted by someone who was signed into an account here. That’s pretty suspicious.
In fact, let’s get into that strange similarity a bit more. Earlier in this comment, you claimed that you “always post with identifiable language” and that you “always post with […] monikers”. Well, here’s the thing: nearly every one of these posts is posted under a different moniker and IP address (something that you still have a tendency to do, so don’t go arguing that you always use an “identifiable […] moniker” when you post, because you don’t); despite this, they all discuss essentially the same topic (either being an alleged victim of organized gang-stalking or someone trying to spread awareness about organized gang-stalking) using the same language and, for any two posts that fall in the same category (of the two I mentioned earlier), the same basic structure, too.
Now, only one of them uses a name with some variant of “ROGS” included (your most common pattern), but you have used monikers that are not particularly indicative of you in particular in the past (and are doing so right now), so when combined with your tendency to use multiple monikers in a single thread and change your IP address relatively often, the only way I would be able to determine which one(s) was/were posted by you specifically would be to distinguish which ones use your “identifiable language”. However, as mentioned, there isn’t much difference among them in that regard. As such, a ton of those comments appear to have been posted by you under different monikers and IP addresses. The oddly late timestamps for these comments only adds to the suspicion. As a result, it kinda looks like you were spamming the thread with false claims and anecdotes or something like that. It’s either that or the language you use isn’t quite as identifiable as you claim it is.
Really, I don’t know why you chose to link that article in this comment; it sort of encourages people to form a more negative opinion of you if anything, and it really had nothing to do with anything else you said.
Lastly, Stormfront and its allegedly anti -semitic host is rumored to be Jewish himself, like Brother Nathaneal, or Smoloko.
Ooooooookay… I just finished reading the thread in question. One thing of note is that an unusually large portion of the comments were posted long after the article was; some were as recent as October of 2019. On top of that, the vast majority of the comments from 2014 onwards and essentially all of the ones that were posted more than a year after the article either claim to be victims of stalking, harassment, online stalking, online harassment, gang-stalking, and/or organized gang-stalking (generally abbreviated there as OGS) or assert that gang-stalking and/or OGS is fairly common or something along those lines. That alone is pretty suspicious.
It should also be noted that there are a number of comments on there that read so similarly (all of which were essentially about organized gang-stalking and use the same sort of syntax, structure, vocabulary (including jargon and abbreviations), style, etc.) that I suspect the use of sockpuppets and IP address manipulation for at least a significant portion of them, but I admit that I have no firm evidence, nor do I have any definitive answer as to which ones are genuine and which ones are sockpuppets. (That said, ROGS here has been known to use multiple IP addresses and multiple user names quite often on this site (which he has actually admitted to several times), and he also has shown he’s not above impersonation, so I don’t believe my suspicions are unwarranted or that far off, especially considering how they were all posted years after the article was published, many long after everyone else stopped posting comments.)
There was also this “John G” fellow who posted a few things, only for someone to accuse him being, from what I can understand, a troll or false-flag operative trying to discredit the victims and advocates for victims of organized gang-stalking; however, I couldn’t find anything in what John G said that was any more absurd than many claims made by ROGS or pretty much any of the alleged victims/victim-advocates in that thread. Honestly, that whole thing is rather strange from any perspective.
Now, there are a couple of oddities regarding ROGS here referring to that thread as the start. First, with one exception, I can only definitively link one of the posts to ROGS specifically (as the name is a variation of that), but it’s one of the later posts, and I don’t really believe for a second that that was the only thing he posted there. Also, as mentioned, any posts that could have been from ROGS—and every post regarding organized gang-stalking as a real and frequent phenomenon—were posted years after the article itself was published and mostly well after anyone who might have disagreed with or disputed those claims—including every user logged in with an account—had stopped posting new comments in the thread. The fact that new comments were being added as recent as October 2019 is particularly odd for an article dated in 2013. Finally, although ROGS here claims that “it” started in that particular thread, it’s not entirely clear what “it” is that supposedly started, and it’s even harder to verify given, again, how late many of the posts are and that it’s not entirely. 100% certain which posts came from ROGS and which came from someone else. It certainly wasn’t any attempts argue with him about it or flag him or anything like that. In fact, I think in the entire thread, only one to three comments were actually hidden (none of which I think were likely posted by ROGS), and most—if not all—of the ones that I think could potentially have been posted by ROGS have no responses that dispute any of the claims made in those posts. So, regarding claims of censorship or discrimination against him or his cause, it’s certainly not evident from that thread, nor could it plausibly have started there. Nor is there anything involving the term “lashon hara” or anything related to that concept, nor is there any sign of misdirecting or derailing—even by ROGS bizarre definitions of the terms—by anyone writing in the thread. There also isn’t anyone who posted in that thread—and who is not talking about OGS as widespread or at least existent and serious—doing anything that could be considered trolling by any reasonable stretch (with a possible exception of John G if the accusation against him is accurate, but I reserve judgement on that). (Also, to be clear—though it’s pretty obvious to anyone who reads the thread—as of the time I post this, I have posted exactly 0 comments on that thread, and—prior to today—I neither read nor flagged any of the comments posted there at all. In fact, I had not even heard of or visited this site at all when the article was posted. As such, my involvement with anything involving ROGS or this site certainly didn’t start there, either. Also, SDM wasn’t posting anything in that thread, either.)
I suppose the only plausible thing he could be referring to is that that was the first time a) he posted something online about online gang-stalking, b) he posted something on TechDirt, c) he posted something about online gang-stalking on TechDirt, d) TechDirt and/or its readers dismissed the plausible of a particular instance of organized gang-stalking or the likelihood that it existed at all, e) someone posted a comment about online gang-stalking on TechDirt, or f) TechDirt posted anything relating to potential or actual online gang-stalking, but I really don’t know for certain.
ROGS, do you recall how you kept saying that people had been insulting you, flagging you, arguing with you, and/or dismissing or criticizing you for years, particularly the claim about Wendy calling you an incel or Nazi or something? See, I was hoping that that thread would be the one you’ve been talking about for a while, where you claim all that stuff started/happened. Really, that thread you just linked didn’t really prove much, nor does it explain why you consider yourself to be the victim of targeted attacks here. Would you mind linking the thread where Wendy supposedly called you an incel without provocation or justification? Or the one where you first became attacked or whatever?
Amazing how you can call SDM and I reasonable one moment and establishment gatekeepers the next. Really makes you seem trustworthy and totally rational and reasonable. The lack of any concrete, verifiable evidence for any of your claims—especially regarding Masnick’s supposed tendency to “routinely speak[] boilerplate ADL quips and quotes” (whatever those are) and the idea that SDM and I are “much rewarded and adored by Masnick himself for [our] bad behavior here” (whatever that’s supposed to refer to)—makes your claims seem even more credible and not at all like someone who thinks that they can claim whatever they want without providing any evidence or examples and still be taken seriously here. And your use of lingo/jargon that most English-speaking laypeople of the sort to read TechDirt (largely people involved with computers or software) wouldn’t really be all that familiar with really makes your points clear, simple, and easy to understand for your audience. /s
Seriously though, I completely support Palestinians in their desire for independence and freedom from Israeli dominance and separation. I also believe that Israel’s policies regarding Palestinians leaves much to be desired, to say the least, and that the ADL goes overboard with calling people and positions antisemitic if they say anything the least bit critical of Israel, Judaism, and/or the ADL itself. That some gang-stalking (organized or not) exists on the internet is also something I don’t dispute at all, nor do I dispute that many LEOs and police departments are corrupt and/or go too far all too often. In fact, I’m pretty sure that no one here, including Masnick and SDM, would disagree with you or me on any of those specific points. Also, I should note that I actually have made specific criticisms of many of Israel’s policies regarding Palestine, Palestinians, and the Gaza Strip on several occasions (though maybe not on this website, specifically, since the articles here rarely—if ever—relate to such topics, so bringing that stuff up would only serve to derail threads).
(Though for the record, while you’re not exactly wrong to state that Palestinians are Semitic people, that’s not really relevant to discussions of what is or isn’t antisemitism, a term which, despite what is implied by the etymology, doesn’t refer to opposition, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and/or discrimination directed towards any Semitic people or members of just any subset of Semites; “antisemitism” solely refers to opposition, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and/or discrimination against Jews, specifically—whether as a race, religion, or both—and possibly towards Israeli citizens as a whole, but not necessarily the latter and definitely not including criticism of Israel as a country, its government, or its policies, nor does it include criticism or hatred to only a select subset of Jews/Israeli citizens separate from their religion, ethnicity, and citizenship. It’s weird, I know, and slightly misleading, but the term has been used this way for so long and that it’s unlikely to change any time soon, especially without an obvious replacement already available. Besides, it’s not like “islamophobia” necessarily refers to literal fear of Muslims or Islam (certainly not just pathological fear) despite the use of the suffix “-phobia”, and the same goes for “homophobia” and “transphobia” with regards to homosexuals (and possibly bisexuals) and transgender people (and possibly gender-fluid and/or transvestites), respectively.)
That said, there are reasonable disagreements on some details, like which cases are instances of gang-stalking, the level of organization of gang-stalking overall, the extent of the organization of said gang-stalking, who organizes gang-stalking, the motives and psychology/sociology that leads to gang-stalking, why the bad cops act the way they do, the exact extent of the ADL’s problems, who are the “useful idiots”, and what can or should be done to address and/or raise awareness of the issue. Your methods are liable to do more harm than good to your cause. I truly believe there are some genuine issues here that are worthy of discussion, but you are doing far more to cause people to close their minds to any merit your claims may have than to get people to actually consider them or learn something. It’s generally ill-advised to insult the people you’re trying to convince, potential allies, or neutral parties, and people aren’t really going to be interested in having or paying attention to a discussion about the ADL or Palestinians in the comment section of an article that doesn’t really have much—if anything—to do with either of those things. That you have admitted several times on this site to using trollish tactics on this very site on multiple occasions; can’t seem to make up your mind regarding who to try to be reasonable and/or civil with and who to attack, insult, and dismiss out-of-hand (seriously, I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve switched between attacking me and being relatively cordial with me); and aren’t exactly great at providing decent evidence or examples in support of your claims just makes you seem even less credible or worthy of attention, further damaging your ability to gain any traction with your claims from readers on this site.
Also, I’m still confused about why you’re still attacking my autism (which is what I believe is what you intended when you called me a “sperg”—a term I had never heard of before despite being quite open about my autism). You previously called it an experiment or demonstration of sorts, but if that’s the case, then hasn’t it already served its purpose to the extent that it can do so? Why keep doing it now? What’s even the point? It seems even weirder to me considering how you’ve previously expressed skepticism of psychology/psychiatry and the validity of such diagnoses. Actually, all things considered, it’s kinda funny that you accuse people like myself of being derailers and/or trolls despite the fact that you have derailed discussions on many occasions (like pretty much any time you bring up Israel, Palestine, the ADL, child porn, or gang-stalking in a discussion that doesn’t actually have much—if anything—to do with that) and have admitted on several occasions to engaging in trollish behavior for trollish motives quite frequently here, so calling you a derailer and troll would be at least as reasonable and accurate as you calling any of us either of those terms.
All that said, I truly do appreciate you seeming to take my advice and actually specify where and when exactly this started by finally posting a link to where you claim this got started rather than just saying that it’s been going on for years. As I suspected, it dates back to well before I even heard of TechDirt. I haven’t read it quite yet because I wanted to address the other parts of your comment first, but I will immediately after submitting this comment, and I may (or may not) post some additional comment(s) regarding my understanding of that thread once I’ve finished reading it.
Ah. I suppose compared to most of his arguments and claims, it’s not exactly the worst thing he’s said. Still, that wouldn’t be the fault of the people suggesting their use, and there is still no one forcing him to use those libraries anyways (by his own admission), so I’m still perplexed about why he mentioned this.
And yes, I also believe that point 6 is definitely the most aggravating part of this whole thing. When they argue about whether or not vaccines cause nerve damage, severe allergic reactions, or death and do so frequently enough to be a significant issue, at least we can all agree that those allegations—if true—would be perfectly good reasons to question whether vaccines are truly worth the price, even if what they’re claiming is exaggerated or unproven at best and often completely wrong. The whole autism thing is just plain insulting.
Agreed on all counts. TBH, I didn’t actually watch the whole video, or any of it, really. I just looked it up via search, confirmed the URLs match, and then addressed the primary argument from the description (or something like that). It’s a workaround that lets me figure out what point they’re trying to make but doesn’t add any views… or at least it wouldn’t have had I not then accidentally clicked the link when trying to click “reply to this”! Whoops!
That the CDC doesn’t have those studies doesn’t mean the studies don’t exist.
The burden of proof is on those who assert that vaccines do cause autism. There are no published and unretracted studies that do so (or even demonstrate the possibility of such).
The person talking doesn’t understand how studies actually work. There have been many studies into whether vaccines can or do cause autism. They have either disproven that a particular theory for causation is plausible or were unable to find sufficient evidence to support a claim that vaccine use does or could cause autism. Strictly speaking, neither of these sets of studies technically would include studies that, individually, disprove the claim that vaccines could somehow cause autism. However, taken as a whole, they could still be taken as evidence that they do not cause autism because, even after a lot of testing, we have yet to find any evidence they do and have ruled out pretty much every suggested theory of causation thus far.
Autism is generally difficult to impossible to be detected prior to 6 months old, so it’d be rather challenging to determine whether a particular infant had autism prior to the vaccines given at that age or developed it later. That said, it’s highly unlikely given that there is no known plausible theory of causation for infants (or anyone else) to develop autism from any vaccine, and there is still no evidence to prove that they do, could, or even might cause autism. Again, the burden of proof is on the ones claiming causation here.
There isn’t even any known correlation between vaccines and autism that would suggest possible causation. Sure, both have been on the rise for years, but the rise of each started independently of each other (at the time diagnosed autism began rising, there was no change in which vaccines were used, who was using them, or in any practices regarding vaccines, and no change in vaccine use, rate of change in vaccine use, or makeup has coincided with a change in the rate at which people have been diagnosed with autism), and the rise of diagnosed autism can easily be attributed to better understanding and knowledge of autism.
I continue to be greatly offended by the idea that some people would rather their children (and any children near them who are unable to be vaccinated) suffer from a fairly dangerous (possibly even fatal) disease that is easily preventable rather than risk the possibility of their children possibly develop autism, a far less serious condition and one which can actually be useful. It’s even more offensive given that there is no evidence to suggest such a risk actually exists.
I wouldn’t really consider that guy a reliable source on this subject.
You’ve been complaining about how onerous some terms of some license agreements can be, and you posted a moderately long post that claimed that you (or some hypothetical dev) don’t want to agree to certain licenses because they aren’t acceptable, then later singled out GPL as an example of an onerous license. As if that wasn’t enough, a lot of what has been discussed has been regarding what licenses are necessary in what cases and similar topics.
How can you now assert that license terms were never part of the “problem” that you claim exists?
Burden of proof for following DMCA is on your shoulders.
First, this is a discussion, not a court of law, and we’re talking about software developers as a whole. Unless you have evidence that no one is able or willing to follow the DMCA, we assume that such people exist. You’re the one asserting that we’re violating the law, so prove it.
The normal process in a copyright lawsuit is as follows:
You skip a number of steps here. These include the fact that the complain must allege either that the defendant actively and explicitly encouraged or directly participated in some act of copyright infringement, the defendant created a piece of software/device is only capable of being used for copyright infringement, or the defendant developed software/a device that was used in one or more specific acts of direct copyright infringement and the defendant had or should have had particularized knowledge of the infringement and the defendant had the ability to remove the offending content. Otherwise, we don’t even need to get into the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA because the defendant isn’t harboring any infringing content to begin with.
1) defendant needs to explicitly mention that his platform follows DMCA's safe harbor -- this is because the defendant need to actively do some operations before they can claim DMCA protections, for example register their contact agent with the copyright office. If you failed to do this before lawsuit, no DMCA protections for you.
This implicitly assumes that the defendant’s product/service is even a platform at all. Again, for things like text editors, video editors, or audio players, there is no platform involved, hence we don’t even need to go into safe-harbor provisions at all.
Additionally, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plausibly plead certain facts that could plausibly lead a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the defendant may have lost safe-harbor protections in this specific case. The defendant can then merely assert that the allegations aren’t sufficient to overcome the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision, so the claims against them must be dismissed. Even if the case does not get dismissed, it would then go into discovery, after which, should the evidence be legally insufficient to lead a reasonable fact-finder to plausibly conclude that the DMCA’s safe-harbor doesn’t protect the defendant in this case, then the defendant could move for summary judgement and would likely prevail. Should it get to a trial, both sides must present evidence that they are right, but the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff first, not the defendant. The only proof the defendant needs to provide regarding this issue is evidence that refutes the claims or evidence that the plaintiff provides that the defendant is not in compliance.
At each stage, it is actually on the plaintiff to prove that the safe-harbor provision don’t protect the defendant. (Well, they defendant would have to show that they provide a platform for users’ content, which woud mean the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions would plausibly apply, but that’s it.) In these respects, the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision is rather similar to CDA §230. Once the defendant’s status as a platform for or publisher of user-created/-submitted content has been established as being the basis for the underlying cause(s)-of-action for the lawsuit’s claims against that defendant, it is entirely on the plaintiff to prove that the law doesn’t protect the defendant from liability in this suit.
2) DMCA safe harbor is very easy to lose. Large companies have significant problems fulfilling all the required sections, even though they have dedicated persons assigned to this task alone
Do you have any evidence for these claims?
With the possible exception of registering a DMCA agent for a platform (and even that may not be strictly necessary to comply with the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision), the only requirement for non-IAPs is to accept DMCA notices and take reasonable steps to remove the specific content specified in those notices from the platform. Even if the platform doesn’t reasonably comply with a given DMCA notice, the platform only loses protection from liability over the content specified in that specific notice, and only with respect to the specific copyright(s) alleged to have been infringed upon in that notice. They only lose all safe-harbor protections for all content on the platform if it has been demonstrated that the platform frequently ignores DMCA notices. It’s also worth noting that there is no set deadline for compliance, and “reasonable compliance” is rather broad. It’s really not that hard to comply with this, either.
(With IAPs, failure to enforce their own rules that require kicking off repeat-infringers after a certain number of strikes (which is not set in stone in the DMCA, either) will remove their safe-harbor protections, but that’s not really relevant when talking about software or developers.)
Additionally, I have seen no instances of larger platforms having significant issues with complying with this section of the DMCA at all (possibly excluding IAPs). Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
And, to reiterate, the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision is only regarding online ISPs (like YouTube, Facebook, or Steam) and IAPs (like Verizon Wireless or Spectrum Internet). For other software and devices (like a text editor, audio player, video player, or physical MP3 player), there is no liability at all so long as the product in question is capable of substantial noninfringing uses and the devs/publishers don’t actively encourage infringement in particular.
3) Smaller entities the safe harbor requirements might be impossible to fulfill, and those smaller entities would need to follow copyright laws instead of dmca.
Ummm, the DMCA is part of US copyright law. If you follow the DMCA, you are following copyright law. And, as stated above, the safe-harbor requirements aren’t that hard to follow, and they aren’t even necessary for many of the specific cases we’ve discussed.
Look, all the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA do is provide an exception to the rule that, if you have actual, lawful, legal control over devices that have the allegedly infringing content and/or are yourself publishing the allegedly infringing content (even if you don’t create it), then you become liable for that case of infringement. It doesn’t affect the fact that if you don’t publish that content and you don’t have any actual, lawful, legal control over any devices containing the infringing content, you are liable for copyright infringement if and only if you yourself were directly infringing on someone’s copyright, your software/device is not capable of substantial noninfringing uses and is capable of being used for copyright infringement, and/or you actively, directly, and explicitly encourage copyright infringement. (It also doesn’t affect the fact that, even for those who do publish the underlying content or have actual, lawful, legal control over any devices containing the allegedly infringing content, you are just as liable as the others if any of the aforementioned conditions are true.) There’s also usually a knowledge requirement, at least a general one, for liability. As such, copyright law—with or without the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions—does not support your claims about who is or isn’t liable for copyright infringement at all.
Additionally, none of that changes the elements for direct copyright infringement, and you can’t hold anyone liable for any sort of copyright infringement by anyone (whether it’s direct, contributory, or vicarious liability) without first establishing that there is some underlying case of direct infringement for which some person(s) is/are directly liable and for which the defendant(s) have some plausible connection to in some way, shape, or form. Thus, the plaintiff still has to allege and prove that they possess valid ownership of the relevant right(s) associated with the allegedly infringed copyright, that that copyright was properly registered with the US Copyright Office, and that the allegedly infringing material does, in fact, copy from the copyrighted material. Without that, the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Additionally, if the copied material is uncopyrightable (such as ideas, scenes a faire, or facts) or in the public domain (such as Shakespeare’s works) or the use falls under one of the exceptions to copyright infringement (such as de minimus use or fair use), then the allegedly infringing material is not, in fact, infringing, so there is no copyright infringement in that case for anyone to be held liable for at all. These elements can be determined at any stage of litigation (transfer of venue, dismissal, summary judgement, trial, reconsideration, or appeal), depending on the situation.
And, as I noted earlier, the DMCA isn’t that hard to comply with, anyways. You’re given a lot of leeway to comply. But let’s say that it is difficult to comply with. That’s only evidence that copyright law is too restrictive.
4) It is still the default option that everyone in the market would need to follow copyright laws. Only larger companies can avoid that by relying on DMCA.
Counterpoint: this website is dependent on the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision, and I don’t believe anyone would argue that it is owned or run by any larger companies.
Also, again, the DMCA (including its safe-harbor provision) is a part of US copyright law, and US copyright law does not in any way match what you’ve been claiming about it (even without the DMCA or just excluding its safe-harbor provision). You are completely wrong about what either the rest or the entirety of US copyright law actually says and does, and regarding what is considered infringement and who is liable for it when it occurs.
Really, you seem confused about what copyright law is, and you also seem to confuse discussing/determining the boundaries of what is considered copyright infringement and/or the conditions for one to be held liable for someone else’s infringement with trying to find ways to infringe or not follow copyright law yourself and not be held liable for it. That’s not how it works at all. It’s not about finding ways to infringe and not be held liable; it’s about what is actually considered infringement and who is actually liable for it. If you follow the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision and are not otherwise liable for infringement, you are following copyright law and you are not committing copyright infringement.
I’m sorry, but what specifically do you find onerous about GPL?
More importantly, you’re only proving the point that all new creative or useful works (including software) build off of existing works and knowledge. After all, you just said you use a base system created by someone else, which is the point that PaulT and that AC was making. It also disproves all the claims you made in your past few comments about not having any viable options for libraries, that you shouldn’t use others’ works in your own, or that you don’t use anyone else’s works in your own.
As for the “strip-away-layers thing”, as you call it, there are plenty of ways to still have significant flexibility, and it has nothing to do with copyright at all, nor does it disprove or really anything anyone else has said. And that’s assuming that that is actually necessary or preferable, which isn’t always the case.
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: DoD Quality Gaslighting,Inc.
SDM opined that your claims sound like antisemitic, white-supremacists conspiracy theories. He didn’t say anything about Nazis, specifically. At any rate, stating unflattering opinions about the things you say isn’t the same as claiming someone is a chatbot or working with the ADL or silencing people, and as far as this discussion is concerned, it seems to me like you started name-calling first.
I’ve called out blue, bobmail, Hamilton (who is probably also either blue or bobmail), tp, zof, and a number of ACs—among others—for making “blatantly h[i]strionic false statements” on numerous occasions, and I’ve also called out several individuals that I normally agree with when I see a problem with what they say. That you haven’t personally observed that isn’t really my problem, and you can verify it for yourself by viewing my TD profile.
In this case, SDM’s comment doesn’t really make any blatantly false claims without evidence, as far as I can tell. It’s mostly an opinion about your claims, not really something that could be proven or disproven. Now, whether or not I agree with his opinion (and if so, to what extent) is another question entirely. Suffice to say that I’m taking no position on whether you or your claims are actually antisemitic and/or white-supremacist beyond noting that drawing that conclusion is, at the very least, not completely unreasonable or unjustifiable, given how much you talk about these zionists conspiring to silence criticism and such. As I take no position on the matter, I feel no need to argue with or support SDM on that particular matter.
Are we reading the same thread? I’m talking about the 2013 thread you linked. In that thread, I didn’t see anyone attacking anyone who I would believe to be you. On the contrary, there were a lot of strangely similar comments that seemed to be supporting your claims, and almost all of them came long after everyone else had stopped posting. So, if you believe you were the only real person on that thread, does that mean all those people claiming to be victims of online gang-stalking were either fake or a sockpuppet for you?
Well, I just had some steak I had leftover from dinner last night, so I guess that’s sufficient evidence that I’m a real person, too.
Look, my point was for you to provide the same sort of evidence that you’re asking of me, if not just realize how dumb this line of inquiry is.
Is that so? Would you mind showing the rest of us this evidence of yours? Because you’re making some pretty wild claims without offering any verifiable evidence that supports them. I don’t think that TD even has something that could “IP block[]” you, especially considering the fact that, as far as I can tell, you’ve constantly changed IP addresses from the start, so it seems pretty darn ineffective.
As for being unable to view hidden comments, that’s simply false. The only thing that would prevent you from doing so is if you were using some sort of script-blocker or something. TD has been accused of this before, and it’s never panned out.
The problem is that if I’m not privvy to any of the evidence supporting your claims, I have no reason to believe you or take you seriously. In fact, the fact that you claim to have evidence and choose to deliberately withhold it suggests to me that you don’t actually have evidence and are just making it up. I’m not saying that’s the case, but you’re not exactly doing yourself any favors here.
Uh, no. First of all, is the ADL secular or Zionist? Pick one.
Second, autism has been around for centuries. It just wasn’t until recently that we became able to properly diagnose and treat autism, but it’s not necessarily more prevalent this generation than any other; just more apparent because we no longer shove people who don’t fit in into mental institutions and the internet makes it easier for introverts (which many autistic people are) to interact with large numbers of people.
Third, I’m an agnostic Christian/deist, not a secular humanist (though I have nothing against secular humanists or secular humanism in general), and if you have a problem with rationalists, then that says a lot more about you than it does about them. (But seriously, why do you thing that secular humanists and rationalists are conspiring with zionists and the ADL against you?)
Finally, you’ve misstated the fallacy. It’s “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Pretty much the opposite of what you’re claiming. Now, it’s true that Hitchen’s Razor says to disregard without evidence that which is asserted without evidence, but Hitchen’s Razor doesn’t say that lacking evidence is proof that the assertion is necessarily false; merely that it’s not worth further discussion without some evidence. You’re also misapplying them here; the claim being asserted (without evidence) is that pretty much everyone here besides you is an AI chatbot; the default assumption is that we’re all human. It’s your job to give evidence to refute that assumption if you want to be taken seriously here.
You sort of do, as I point out later, but I agree that “CIA/JTRIG /FBI /ADL /Israeli Squad 8200 manipulated personas“ aren’t real… though you haven’t exactly shown that they exist at all, anyways (outside of possibly a few select instances, if that), and—again—the assumption is that someone is a real person rather than a chatbot or whatever.
While there are a number of efforts to undermine many aspects of the Constitution, it hasn’t actually been suspended. Nor do I see evidence of spying countrymen like you claim.
That’s great and all, except I fail to see why you’d do so here, and I’ve yet to see evidence of any growing awareness at all.
Then I really don’t understand your goal here. If you aren’t trying to educate anyone, you aren’t trying to persuade anyone, and you’re not trying to find allies, then quite frankly, this isn’t the place for you to have this discussion. If you’re trying to validate others’ experiences or something, this isn’t an echo chamber or safe space for you or alleged victims of gang-stalking to find solace. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this isn’t really the place for you.
If you have no intention of spreading awareness or sympathy or action from outsiders, then please leave. You’re wasting everyone’s time by posting your stuff here if that’s your goal. Try somewhere else, perhaps. Make a Facebook page or a Twitter account or a subreddit or your own web page or something; make your own place to give these people the place they need.
I don’t come here to get validation from other autistic people. As far as I can tell, I’m the only one here, anyways. Nor do I post here to give other autistic people any sort of validation. If I want to do that, I’ll do so somewhere else where it makes sense to do so.
And if you think I’m just a timesucker, there’s an easy way to handle that: just ignore me. Quite frankly, if you don’t think that any good will come from further interactions from me, well, no one is forcing you to respond to my comments. If I’m wasting your time, it’s only because you let me.
Well, since I have never had to go to court or jail at all and have never been arrested or anything, and you have no evidence that would disprove that, I definitely don’t fit in that camp.
That’s interesting. So they all have favorited thousands of works and had their only creative contribution being a translation for someone else’s work? That’s incredible, in that I literally don’t find that claim to be at all credible.
And while we’re at it, do they also have a fanfiction.net account? Do they also play Angry Birds? Do they also have a GitHub account with a few codes made public? Do they also answer a bunch of questions on Quora, using an account linked to a Facebook account that provides a photo of them for the profile that everyone can see?
All of these were connections you observed, by the way.
Well, let’s see. I don’t believe I’ve taken any public stance on UFOs or aliens, exactly; nor have I really had any interaction with the “true believers”. For what it’s worth, I neither believe nor disbelieve in aliens (I think it’s statistically fairly likely that there is some sort of life on at least one other planet somewhere in the vast universe, though I don’t believe there’s any good evidence proving that that’s the case), and I believe the vast majority—if not all—of the UFO claims are severely lacking in evidence and credibility. I’m pretty sure that I have been rather dismissive publicly of flat-earthers, though—again—I don’t believe I’ve had any actual interaction with any of them, online or offline.
As for SJWs, well, I’ve generally supported the more sensible ideas and approaches of those who try to combat prejudice, discrimination, and ignorance against those who aren’t white, straight, neurotypical, Christian cis-males, but I also try to combat the more extreme advocates, including Alex Mauer among others.
As for “the Asian FBI”, I was unaware that the entire continent of Asia had a single FBI agency to share among the various countries. That’s rather interesting. At any rate, I have had no interaction (at least as far as I’m aware) with any members of any Asian governments—former or current—at all. I only know a little Japanese that I picked up from anime and manga (though I can’t read kanji or kana, really) and a few select words of Chinese (though, again, I don’t know any of the Chinese characters outside of numerals); I don’t know any words in any of the other Asian languages, and I’ve never left the North American continent. I’ve certainly never been an informant for or affiliate of “the Asian FBI”.
So, really, this bullet point doesn’t fit me either. Seems like of the three things you mentioned, at most one of them could be said to describe me, and given all the evidence you found that you’re outright ignoring, I’d have to say that you have soundly failed to support your case.
Since you completely and utterly failed to describe “my type” in a way that would actually include me as an example, I haven’t actually concurred with those ACs (saying you shouldn’t tell them to kill themselves is not a concurrence), I’m not seeing any race baiting by SDM (unless you tread Jews as a race, but it still seems like a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw even if I’m more hesitant about claiming the same), and I did take SDM to task when he suggested that someone else who commented should die, this statement doesn’t actually describe me at all, and you haven’t actually proven that calling me an AI chatbot or informant or whatever makes rational sense. (I’ve also criticized several commenters for drawing broad conclusions not yet in evidence, though I don’t always do so. That you don’t agree with my judgements and discretion is fine but ultimately irrelevant. In this case, while I don’t exactly agree with SDM on this specific issue, at least not entirely, I don’t see anything that deserves to be called out, either. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but I am not required to call people out just because you think there’s a problem with what they say if I don’t feel the same.) Really, the only thing you got right about me is that I have a DeviantArt account and that I have autism… things that are true of many other real people. I’m honestly perplexed where you got the stuff about criminal informants and aliens and such as having any relation to anything I’ve said or done, online or offline.
See, this is why you should be more careful about drawing conclusions based upon patterns you find. You’re more apt to draw conclusions that are completely false. Also, the “two-faced” descriptor seems to be a better fit for you considering the fact that you’ve gone back and forth about whether to treat SDM and I civilly or not; I’ve been fairly consistent, really.
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Horst Hoyer
Funny how you claim there’s no grand conspiracy in the same comment that essentially describes what many would consider a grand conspiracy. Well, whatever.
I don’t recall ever reading anything about Jews helping Hitler with the Holocaust, and I’m pretty sure the term “antisemitism” has been around for quite some time, likely predating WWII, but whatever. Whether or not that’s true has no effect on any other claims anyone else has made, so I suppose it doesn’t make that big of a difference here. Still, I’d like to see a citation for those claims.
As for “Zionist”, that term actually refers to members of a movement that started among Jews that advocated for them to return to the Middle East (specifically the original location of Israel) and make a Jewish-centric country there again. A large part of the idea was to escape from all the persecution they were experiencing in Europe (and later the Americas) since the Jewish Diaspora, especially since the Middle Ages. The term has likely evolved since then, but the core idea of having a country for Jews in the Holy Land (as they call it) still remains in the various iterations. It’s plausible that the term has also been co-opted by Jewish extremists as well, like you describe.
Now, you still haven’t provided any evidence of any of this “ADLification” or infiltration by the ADL, government agencies, etc., for the purpose of silencing anyone, and there are plenty of terrorists who were certainly not targeted by “zionists” as they never even mention Judaism. (One or two examples don’t really make a great sample set from which we can draw any conclusions.) That said, I must admit that I’m curious about the claim that this “ROGS analysis” of yours is “scientifically falsifiable” and “replicable”. Based on how you’ve responded to SDM and me at various times, it seems rather unreliable at actually detecting these patterns. After all, you’ve gone back and forth on whether we are chatbots, useful idiots, or rational people. Still, I’d like to see the documentation for this “replicable” “theorem” of yours so that others could, in fact, replicate it for testing purposes.
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks, AC
First of all, no one said anything about copyright just now, and that AC is almost certainly not SDM. No one, including that AC and SDM, has ever accused you of taking any side here or anywhere else regarding copyright, either. Not quite sure where you got that from, but let’s set that aside for now.
Now, I’m pretty sure that blue, aka out_of_the_blue, possibly aka Hamilton, among other aliases, has already been explained to you, but whatever. The short answer is that he is a known troll who generally takes the copyright maximalists’ side on everything. (I think he’s addressed other topics as well, though it’s always in opposition to the author of the article and fairly extreme.) He also tends to accuse so-called “zombie accounts” (accounts that remain dormant (in that they aren’t used to post any comments) for extended periods of time and then get used to post one or more new comments on a recent article) of being sockpuppets for the people running the site, saying the fact that they were suddenly used after such a long period of disuse is evidence of something suspicious. Additionally, he loves to tone-troll. He used to use an account under the name “out_of_the_blue”, but for the past several years he’s posted without logging in.
Regarding the thread from 2011, while no one’s sure what he expects to achieve by continually bringing it up, but essentially, he got all offended by something Tim Geigner posted in reply to one of his many nonsensical posts. Tim had decided to post random quotes from Obama’s book in reply to each of blue’s posts, basically trolling the troll, and one of those quotes was apparently so offensive to blue that he still hasn’t gotten over it and will randomly bring it up with a link to the comment that offended him so. He hasn’t done it for a while, but I definitely recall him doing so sometime in 2019, so it’s probably only a matter of time.
Now, I don’t think anyone is accusing you of having any actual association with blue or that you’d take his side on anything, really, but this AC probably was just making the point that the reason you included that link to that 2013 article in that comment as well probably won’t make any more sense to us than why blue keeps bringing up that thread from 2011.
Hope that answers your questions!
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: DoD Quality Gaslighting,Inc.
Since you seem to love this sort of thing, I’ll use it against you. It’s pretty appropriate in this instance, anyway.
tl;dr
Evidence, or GTFO
Do you have any evidence that anyone in thread was a real person? Do you have any evidence that you are a real person? Do you have any evidence that anyone was stalked or harassed solely because of their activity on that particular thread?
As for me being an AI chatbot, you seem to have been finding some decent evidence of my being a real person already.
Finally, this “ROGS analysis” does more to alienate potential allies than to do anything productive or persuasive.
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: Thanks, AC
Since you apparently don’t like long posts (despite the fact that your posts aren’t exactly short), I’ll keep this brief:
There is no rule—unspoken or otherwise—that says I can only respond in threads that I am mentioned in. FTR, I responded to this one due to it containing a link to a 2013 thread that was also linked to in a comment that did mention me multiple times. Regardless, people can respond in whatever threads they like. It’s not like you only ever post comments in threads that involve you, either, so you’re being a bit of a hypocrite here. Maybe you’re the AI chatbot.
I don’t actually care about using one name. Just that it undermines your argument when you, specifically, don’t do so. Seriously, that’s the sort of thing that makes one think they’re dealing with a troll or a chatbot.
You have the burden of proof regarding chatbots completely backwards. You have to provide evidence that someone is a chatbot, not proof that they aren’t.
I sympathize with any genuine victims of gang-stalkers and cyberstalking—organized or otherwise—if you are indicative of the sort of people who advocate on their behalf.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re always free to ignore them, you know.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: CDC vaccine and autism
Yeah, that’s not how it works. Again, without evidence to prove otherwise, we assume that vaccines don’t cause autism. Plus, what would even be the cause of action here? Besides, the law doesn’t have any say in scientific facts. Vaccines don’t cause autism.
Lastly, how is this a “big win” for anyone other than the lawyers?
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Seriously, though, even if there is a link, I find it offensive that you consider autism to be a bigger problem than the diseases vaccines are meant to prevent.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Maybe you should read the comments, because those claims were already refuted. Every single peer-reviewed study into potential links between vaccine and autism that was published in a respected medical journal or similar outlet and was not later retracted has failed to find any evidence of any possible link at all between vaccines and autism, let alone a causal one. Additionally, many particular possible theories of causation have explicitly been proven false or even impossible. We addressed the studies you mentioned; each of them either did not actually support the hypothesis that there is a link between vaccines and autism, did not go pass through peer-review or get published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, was later retracted, or were otherwise problematic. So no, there aren’t any studies that actually demonstrate such a link. We already discussed this. Why you think I didn’t read those comments despite the fact that you can just as easily find my replies to those comments is beyond me.
You have also not convinced me that vaccines causing autism is indicative in any way of declining health, nor have you established that health in the US is, in fact, declining at all (the coronavirus notwithstanding, in part because that has no connection to vaccines or autism), nor that such a decline could not be explained by the fact that vaccination rates are in decline in some parts of the US, nor that such a decline is, in fact, caused by vaccine use rather than some other factor wholly unrelated to vaccines. Basically, you haven’t given me a reason to think there’s anything to get to the bottom of or that there’s even a reasonable possibility that what’s at the bottom even involves problems with vaccines.
Also, if you are unwilling to spend an hour typing out an actual rebuttal, why in the world should I have to watch an hour-long video to find whatever flaws you think are in my argument? I only made roughly 7 points to begin with, and you say that only some of the points I made are deeply flawed, so why would it take an hour for you to type out a rebuttal? It took me less than fifteen minutes to actually type out those points. That you can’t be bothered to actually address anything I said isn’t my problem.
Finally, since when is Highwire a reliable source about medical information?
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Thanks, AC
[citation needed]
When has Masnick ever rewarded derailers, white supremacists, or “Jewish[-]supremacy apologist[s]” at all, and when has he rewarded SDM (or anyone else, for that matter) for anything other than posting comments that were voted insightful and/or funny by the community or for posting large numbers of comments in a single year?
I don’t think that was ever in dispute here… It’s also worth noting that being against and/or calling out antisemitism doesn’t equate either pro-semitism, either, nor does not being antisemitic equate with being pro-semitic. I’m really not sure what your point is here.
Again, [citation needed]. Also, you clearly don’t understand what “white supremacy” means.
“Ritual defamation” is not a thing, nor has SDM ever engaged in defamation, nor does what you’re accusing SDM of doing (without evidence, BTW) constitute defamation of any sort under US law.
I don’t recall anyone having ever claimed that. In particular, SDM wasn’t accusing that AC of being you.
Well, not always with the “identifiable[…]monikers” (though I’ve never observed you not using some sort of moniker whenever you post rather than the default name of “Anonymous Coward”; well, except this particular instance, which kinda undermines your claim here since, in this particular comment in which you make the claim you always use custom monikers, you aren’t using a custom moniker), and the bit where you say you “study the in-house troll format here” doesn’t actually support your case, but with the “identifiable language”… Well, I’ll get into that later. But, again, I don’t recall that being disputed.
I should note that you use a wide variety of monikers, and while at least a plurality include some variation of “ROGS”, that is frequently not the case. Additionally, you frequently change IP addresses (which can be observed by comparing the different colors and patterns of the square next to your moniker). Together, this makes identifying which comments are yours with absolute certainty a lot more complicated that it really should be, especially across threads. In fact, in many case, the only identifiable feature is the language used, but again, I’ll get into that later.
WTF?! I mean, [citation needed] for sure, but seriously, what in the world are you even talking about? Where did you even get that idea from? Lots of people who use regular accounts on TD don’t get cyberstalked, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that anyone gets turned over to “DoD[-]affiliated speech police” or “IP[-]stalking harassers”. Seriously, why the hell do you think that? When has that ever happened? It is most definitely not well-known, that’s for sure.
Also, even if that’s all true, how would that make using a regular account cowardly and not an act of guts, courage, or confidence? If anything, it sounds like you’re just proving SDM’s point: it “takes stones” to use a regular account to post, and the AC doesn’t have them. Now, if you’re trying to argue that it’s perfectly reasonable for one not to use a regular account, that’s fine (although your arguments in support of that leave something to be desired), but that still doesn’t exactly refute SDM’s point, either. The default moniker for posts from those not logged into an account is “Anonymous Coward” for a reason, you know, even if it’s at least partially tongue-in-cheek.
Now, I actually address this thread in another comment, but I’ll address it here too. There are some other things I want to focus on regarding that here, anyways,
First of all, there is no evidence of anyone trolling, stalking, arguing with, flagging, criticizing, derailing, or misdirecting you (or anyone else discussing organized gang-stalking as a real thing, really) anywhere in that thread, nor was SDM involved with or mentioned in that thread at all. There were also no accusations (false, unjustified, or otherwise) that any two users (AC, monikered, or signed-in) were not two people posting separately from each other. Basically, none of the things you speak of in the rest of this comment could plausibly be alleged to have occurred—let alone started—in that thread at all, nor does that thread contain any evidence supporting any of the other claims in this comment. As such, this is a complete non sequitur that has nothing to do with the rest of that comment or the comment it’s responding to.
Second, there is the strange fact that a large number of comments are oddly recent for something posted in the comment section of an article published in 2013. Some were as recent as October of 2019, nearly six years later. And essentially all of the late-coming posts are awfully similar in a number of ways and weren’t posted by someone who was signed into an account here. That’s pretty suspicious.
In fact, let’s get into that strange similarity a bit more. Earlier in this comment, you claimed that you “always post with identifiable language” and that you “always post with […] monikers”. Well, here’s the thing: nearly every one of these posts is posted under a different moniker and IP address (something that you still have a tendency to do, so don’t go arguing that you always use an “identifiable […] moniker” when you post, because you don’t); despite this, they all discuss essentially the same topic (either being an alleged victim of organized gang-stalking or someone trying to spread awareness about organized gang-stalking) using the same language and, for any two posts that fall in the same category (of the two I mentioned earlier), the same basic structure, too.
Now, only one of them uses a name with some variant of “ROGS” included (your most common pattern), but you have used monikers that are not particularly indicative of you in particular in the past (and are doing so right now), so when combined with your tendency to use multiple monikers in a single thread and change your IP address relatively often, the only way I would be able to determine which one(s) was/were posted by you specifically would be to distinguish which ones use your “identifiable language”. However, as mentioned, there isn’t much difference among them in that regard. As such, a ton of those comments appear to have been posted by you under different monikers and IP addresses. The oddly late timestamps for these comments only adds to the suspicion. As a result, it kinda looks like you were spamming the thread with false claims and anecdotes or something like that. It’s either that or the language you use isn’t quite as identifiable as you claim it is.
Really, I don’t know why you chose to link that article in this comment; it sort of encourages people to form a more negative opinion of you if anything, and it really had nothing to do with anything else you said.
[Sigh…] Once again, [citation needed].
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: Re: you are 100% correct
Ooooooookay… I just finished reading the thread in question. One thing of note is that an unusually large portion of the comments were posted long after the article was; some were as recent as October of 2019. On top of that, the vast majority of the comments from 2014 onwards and essentially all of the ones that were posted more than a year after the article either claim to be victims of stalking, harassment, online stalking, online harassment, gang-stalking, and/or organized gang-stalking (generally abbreviated there as OGS) or assert that gang-stalking and/or OGS is fairly common or something along those lines. That alone is pretty suspicious.
It should also be noted that there are a number of comments on there that read so similarly (all of which were essentially about organized gang-stalking and use the same sort of syntax, structure, vocabulary (including jargon and abbreviations), style, etc.) that I suspect the use of sockpuppets and IP address manipulation for at least a significant portion of them, but I admit that I have no firm evidence, nor do I have any definitive answer as to which ones are genuine and which ones are sockpuppets. (That said, ROGS here has been known to use multiple IP addresses and multiple user names quite often on this site (which he has actually admitted to several times), and he also has shown he’s not above impersonation, so I don’t believe my suspicions are unwarranted or that far off, especially considering how they were all posted years after the article was published, many long after everyone else stopped posting comments.)
There was also this “John G” fellow who posted a few things, only for someone to accuse him being, from what I can understand, a troll or false-flag operative trying to discredit the victims and advocates for victims of organized gang-stalking; however, I couldn’t find anything in what John G said that was any more absurd than many claims made by ROGS or pretty much any of the alleged victims/victim-advocates in that thread. Honestly, that whole thing is rather strange from any perspective.
Now, there are a couple of oddities regarding ROGS here referring to that thread as the start. First, with one exception, I can only definitively link one of the posts to ROGS specifically (as the name is a variation of that), but it’s one of the later posts, and I don’t really believe for a second that that was the only thing he posted there. Also, as mentioned, any posts that could have been from ROGS—and every post regarding organized gang-stalking as a real and frequent phenomenon—were posted years after the article itself was published and mostly well after anyone who might have disagreed with or disputed those claims—including every user logged in with an account—had stopped posting new comments in the thread. The fact that new comments were being added as recent as October 2019 is particularly odd for an article dated in 2013. Finally, although ROGS here claims that “it” started in that particular thread, it’s not entirely clear what “it” is that supposedly started, and it’s even harder to verify given, again, how late many of the posts are and that it’s not entirely. 100% certain which posts came from ROGS and which came from someone else. It certainly wasn’t any attempts argue with him about it or flag him or anything like that. In fact, I think in the entire thread, only one to three comments were actually hidden (none of which I think were likely posted by ROGS), and most—if not all—of the ones that I think could potentially have been posted by ROGS have no responses that dispute any of the claims made in those posts. So, regarding claims of censorship or discrimination against him or his cause, it’s certainly not evident from that thread, nor could it plausibly have started there. Nor is there anything involving the term “lashon hara” or anything related to that concept, nor is there any sign of misdirecting or derailing—even by ROGS bizarre definitions of the terms—by anyone writing in the thread. There also isn’t anyone who posted in that thread—and who is not talking about OGS as widespread or at least existent and serious—doing anything that could be considered trolling by any reasonable stretch (with a possible exception of John G if the accusation against him is accurate, but I reserve judgement on that). (Also, to be clear—though it’s pretty obvious to anyone who reads the thread—as of the time I post this, I have posted exactly 0 comments on that thread, and—prior to today—I neither read nor flagged any of the comments posted there at all. In fact, I had not even heard of or visited this site at all when the article was posted. As such, my involvement with anything involving ROGS or this site certainly didn’t start there, either. Also, SDM wasn’t posting anything in that thread, either.)
I suppose the only plausible thing he could be referring to is that that was the first time a) he posted something online about online gang-stalking, b) he posted something on TechDirt, c) he posted something about online gang-stalking on TechDirt, d) TechDirt and/or its readers dismissed the plausible of a particular instance of organized gang-stalking or the likelihood that it existed at all, e) someone posted a comment about online gang-stalking on TechDirt, or f) TechDirt posted anything relating to potential or actual online gang-stalking, but I really don’t know for certain.
ROGS, do you recall how you kept saying that people had been insulting you, flagging you, arguing with you, and/or dismissing or criticizing you for years, particularly the claim about Wendy calling you an incel or Nazi or something? See, I was hoping that that thread would be the one you’ve been talking about for a while, where you claim all that stuff started/happened. Really, that thread you just linked didn’t really prove much, nor does it explain why you consider yourself to be the victim of targeted attacks here. Would you mind linking the thread where Wendy supposedly called you an incel without provocation or justification? Or the one where you first became attacked or whatever?
On the post: European Law Enforcement Officials Upset Facebook Is Warning Users Their Devices May Have Been Hacked
Re: Re: Re: Re: you are 100% correct
Amazing how you can call SDM and I reasonable one moment and establishment gatekeepers the next. Really makes you seem trustworthy and totally rational and reasonable. The lack of any concrete, verifiable evidence for any of your claims—especially regarding Masnick’s supposed tendency to “routinely speak[] boilerplate ADL quips and quotes” (whatever those are) and the idea that SDM and I are “much rewarded and adored by Masnick himself for [our] bad behavior here” (whatever that’s supposed to refer to)—makes your claims seem even more credible and not at all like someone who thinks that they can claim whatever they want without providing any evidence or examples and still be taken seriously here. And your use of lingo/jargon that most English-speaking laypeople of the sort to read TechDirt (largely people involved with computers or software) wouldn’t really be all that familiar with really makes your points clear, simple, and easy to understand for your audience. /s
Seriously though, I completely support Palestinians in their desire for independence and freedom from Israeli dominance and separation. I also believe that Israel’s policies regarding Palestinians leaves much to be desired, to say the least, and that the ADL goes overboard with calling people and positions antisemitic if they say anything the least bit critical of Israel, Judaism, and/or the ADL itself. That some gang-stalking (organized or not) exists on the internet is also something I don’t dispute at all, nor do I dispute that many LEOs and police departments are corrupt and/or go too far all too often. In fact, I’m pretty sure that no one here, including Masnick and SDM, would disagree with you or me on any of those specific points. Also, I should note that I actually have made specific criticisms of many of Israel’s policies regarding Palestine, Palestinians, and the Gaza Strip on several occasions (though maybe not on this website, specifically, since the articles here rarely—if ever—relate to such topics, so bringing that stuff up would only serve to derail threads).
(Though for the record, while you’re not exactly wrong to state that Palestinians are Semitic people, that’s not really relevant to discussions of what is or isn’t antisemitism, a term which, despite what is implied by the etymology, doesn’t refer to opposition, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and/or discrimination directed towards any Semitic people or members of just any subset of Semites; “antisemitism” solely refers to opposition, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and/or discrimination against Jews, specifically—whether as a race, religion, or both—and possibly towards Israeli citizens as a whole, but not necessarily the latter and definitely not including criticism of Israel as a country, its government, or its policies, nor does it include criticism or hatred to only a select subset of Jews/Israeli citizens separate from their religion, ethnicity, and citizenship. It’s weird, I know, and slightly misleading, but the term has been used this way for so long and that it’s unlikely to change any time soon, especially without an obvious replacement already available. Besides, it’s not like “islamophobia” necessarily refers to literal fear of Muslims or Islam (certainly not just pathological fear) despite the use of the suffix “-phobia”, and the same goes for “homophobia” and “transphobia” with regards to homosexuals (and possibly bisexuals) and transgender people (and possibly gender-fluid and/or transvestites), respectively.)
That said, there are reasonable disagreements on some details, like which cases are instances of gang-stalking, the level of organization of gang-stalking overall, the extent of the organization of said gang-stalking, who organizes gang-stalking, the motives and psychology/sociology that leads to gang-stalking, why the bad cops act the way they do, the exact extent of the ADL’s problems, who are the “useful idiots”, and what can or should be done to address and/or raise awareness of the issue. Your methods are liable to do more harm than good to your cause. I truly believe there are some genuine issues here that are worthy of discussion, but you are doing far more to cause people to close their minds to any merit your claims may have than to get people to actually consider them or learn something. It’s generally ill-advised to insult the people you’re trying to convince, potential allies, or neutral parties, and people aren’t really going to be interested in having or paying attention to a discussion about the ADL or Palestinians in the comment section of an article that doesn’t really have much—if anything—to do with either of those things. That you have admitted several times on this site to using trollish tactics on this very site on multiple occasions; can’t seem to make up your mind regarding who to try to be reasonable and/or civil with and who to attack, insult, and dismiss out-of-hand (seriously, I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve switched between attacking me and being relatively cordial with me); and aren’t exactly great at providing decent evidence or examples in support of your claims just makes you seem even less credible or worthy of attention, further damaging your ability to gain any traction with your claims from readers on this site.
Also, I’m still confused about why you’re still attacking my autism (which is what I believe is what you intended when you called me a “sperg”—a term I had never heard of before despite being quite open about my autism). You previously called it an experiment or demonstration of sorts, but if that’s the case, then hasn’t it already served its purpose to the extent that it can do so? Why keep doing it now? What’s even the point? It seems even weirder to me considering how you’ve previously expressed skepticism of psychology/psychiatry and the validity of such diagnoses. Actually, all things considered, it’s kinda funny that you accuse people like myself of being derailers and/or trolls despite the fact that you have derailed discussions on many occasions (like pretty much any time you bring up Israel, Palestine, the ADL, child porn, or gang-stalking in a discussion that doesn’t actually have much—if anything—to do with that) and have admitted on several occasions to engaging in trollish behavior for trollish motives quite frequently here, so calling you a derailer and troll would be at least as reasonable and accurate as you calling any of us either of those terms.
All that said, I truly do appreciate you seeming to take my advice and actually specify where and when exactly this started by finally posting a link to where you claim this got started rather than just saying that it’s been going on for years. As I suspected, it dates back to well before I even heard of TechDirt. I haven’t read it quite yet because I wanted to address the other parts of your comment first, but I will immediately after submitting this comment, and I may (or may not) post some additional comment(s) regarding my understanding of that thread once I’ve finished reading it.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah. I suppose compared to most of his arguments and claims, it’s not exactly the worst thing he’s said. Still, that wouldn’t be the fault of the people suggesting their use, and there is still no one forcing him to use those libraries anyways (by his own admission), so I’m still perplexed about why he mentioned this.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
And yes, I also believe that point 6 is definitely the most aggravating part of this whole thing. When they argue about whether or not vaccines cause nerve damage, severe allergic reactions, or death and do so frequently enough to be a significant issue, at least we can all agree that those allegations—if true—would be perfectly good reasons to question whether vaccines are truly worth the price, even if what they’re claiming is exaggerated or unproven at best and often completely wrong. The whole autism thing is just plain insulting.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Agreed on all counts. TBH, I didn’t actually watch the whole video, or any of it, really. I just looked it up via search, confirmed the URLs match, and then addressed the primary argument from the description (or something like that). It’s a workaround that lets me figure out what point they’re trying to make but doesn’t add any views… or at least it wouldn’t have had I not then accidentally clicked the link when trying to click “reply to this”! Whoops!
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
That the CDC doesn’t have those studies doesn’t mean the studies don’t exist.
The burden of proof is on those who assert that vaccines do cause autism. There are no published and unretracted studies that do so (or even demonstrate the possibility of such).
The person talking doesn’t understand how studies actually work. There have been many studies into whether vaccines can or do cause autism. They have either disproven that a particular theory for causation is plausible or were unable to find sufficient evidence to support a claim that vaccine use does or could cause autism. Strictly speaking, neither of these sets of studies technically would include studies that, individually, disprove the claim that vaccines could somehow cause autism. However, taken as a whole, they could still be taken as evidence that they do not cause autism because, even after a lot of testing, we have yet to find any evidence they do and have ruled out pretty much every suggested theory of causation thus far.
Autism is generally difficult to impossible to be detected prior to 6 months old, so it’d be rather challenging to determine whether a particular infant had autism prior to the vaccines given at that age or developed it later. That said, it’s highly unlikely given that there is no known plausible theory of causation for infants (or anyone else) to develop autism from any vaccine, and there is still no evidence to prove that they do, could, or even might cause autism. Again, the burden of proof is on the ones claiming causation here.
There isn’t even any known correlation between vaccines and autism that would suggest possible causation. Sure, both have been on the rise for years, but the rise of each started independently of each other (at the time diagnosed autism began rising, there was no change in which vaccines were used, who was using them, or in any practices regarding vaccines, and no change in vaccine use, rate of change in vaccine use, or makeup has coincided with a change in the rate at which people have been diagnosed with autism), and the rise of diagnosed autism can easily be attributed to better understanding and knowledge of autism.
I continue to be greatly offended by the idea that some people would rather their children (and any children near them who are unable to be vaccinated) suffer from a fairly dangerous (possibly even fatal) disease that is easily preventable rather than risk the possibility of their children possibly develop autism, a far less serious condition and one which can actually be useful. It’s even more offensive given that there is no evidence to suggest such a risk actually exists.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’ve been complaining about how onerous some terms of some license agreements can be, and you posted a moderately long post that claimed that you (or some hypothetical dev) don’t want to agree to certain licenses because they aren’t acceptable, then later singled out GPL as an example of an onerous license. As if that wasn’t enough, a lot of what has been discussed has been regarding what licenses are necessary in what cases and similar topics.
How can you now assert that license terms were never part of the “problem” that you claim exists?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, this is a discussion, not a court of law, and we’re talking about software developers as a whole. Unless you have evidence that no one is able or willing to follow the DMCA, we assume that such people exist. You’re the one asserting that we’re violating the law, so prove it.
You skip a number of steps here. These include the fact that the complain must allege either that the defendant actively and explicitly encouraged or directly participated in some act of copyright infringement, the defendant created a piece of software/device is only capable of being used for copyright infringement, or the defendant developed software/a device that was used in one or more specific acts of direct copyright infringement and the defendant had or should have had particularized knowledge of the infringement and the defendant had the ability to remove the offending content. Otherwise, we don’t even need to get into the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA because the defendant isn’t harboring any infringing content to begin with.
This implicitly assumes that the defendant’s product/service is even a platform at all. Again, for things like text editors, video editors, or audio players, there is no platform involved, hence we don’t even need to go into safe-harbor provisions at all.
Additionally, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plausibly plead certain facts that could plausibly lead a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the defendant may have lost safe-harbor protections in this specific case. The defendant can then merely assert that the allegations aren’t sufficient to overcome the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision, so the claims against them must be dismissed. Even if the case does not get dismissed, it would then go into discovery, after which, should the evidence be legally insufficient to lead a reasonable fact-finder to plausibly conclude that the DMCA’s safe-harbor doesn’t protect the defendant in this case, then the defendant could move for summary judgement and would likely prevail. Should it get to a trial, both sides must present evidence that they are right, but the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff first, not the defendant. The only proof the defendant needs to provide regarding this issue is evidence that refutes the claims or evidence that the plaintiff provides that the defendant is not in compliance.
At each stage, it is actually on the plaintiff to prove that the safe-harbor provision don’t protect the defendant. (Well, they defendant would have to show that they provide a platform for users’ content, which woud mean the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions would plausibly apply, but that’s it.) In these respects, the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision is rather similar to CDA §230. Once the defendant’s status as a platform for or publisher of user-created/-submitted content has been established as being the basis for the underlying cause(s)-of-action for the lawsuit’s claims against that defendant, it is entirely on the plaintiff to prove that the law doesn’t protect the defendant from liability in this suit.
Do you have any evidence for these claims?
With the possible exception of registering a DMCA agent for a platform (and even that may not be strictly necessary to comply with the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision), the only requirement for non-IAPs is to accept DMCA notices and take reasonable steps to remove the specific content specified in those notices from the platform. Even if the platform doesn’t reasonably comply with a given DMCA notice, the platform only loses protection from liability over the content specified in that specific notice, and only with respect to the specific copyright(s) alleged to have been infringed upon in that notice. They only lose all safe-harbor protections for all content on the platform if it has been demonstrated that the platform frequently ignores DMCA notices. It’s also worth noting that there is no set deadline for compliance, and “reasonable compliance” is rather broad. It’s really not that hard to comply with this, either.
(With IAPs, failure to enforce their own rules that require kicking off repeat-infringers after a certain number of strikes (which is not set in stone in the DMCA, either) will remove their safe-harbor protections, but that’s not really relevant when talking about software or developers.)
Additionally, I have seen no instances of larger platforms having significant issues with complying with this section of the DMCA at all (possibly excluding IAPs). Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
And, to reiterate, the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision is only regarding online ISPs (like YouTube, Facebook, or Steam) and IAPs (like Verizon Wireless or Spectrum Internet). For other software and devices (like a text editor, audio player, video player, or physical MP3 player), there is no liability at all so long as the product in question is capable of substantial noninfringing uses and the devs/publishers don’t actively encourage infringement in particular.
Ummm, the DMCA is part of US copyright law. If you follow the DMCA, you are following copyright law. And, as stated above, the safe-harbor requirements aren’t that hard to follow, and they aren’t even necessary for many of the specific cases we’ve discussed.
Look, all the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA do is provide an exception to the rule that, if you have actual, lawful, legal control over devices that have the allegedly infringing content and/or are yourself publishing the allegedly infringing content (even if you don’t create it), then you become liable for that case of infringement. It doesn’t affect the fact that if you don’t publish that content and you don’t have any actual, lawful, legal control over any devices containing the infringing content, you are liable for copyright infringement if and only if you yourself were directly infringing on someone’s copyright, your software/device is not capable of substantial noninfringing uses and is capable of being used for copyright infringement, and/or you actively, directly, and explicitly encourage copyright infringement. (It also doesn’t affect the fact that, even for those who do publish the underlying content or have actual, lawful, legal control over any devices containing the allegedly infringing content, you are just as liable as the others if any of the aforementioned conditions are true.) There’s also usually a knowledge requirement, at least a general one, for liability. As such, copyright law—with or without the DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions—does not support your claims about who is or isn’t liable for copyright infringement at all.
Additionally, none of that changes the elements for direct copyright infringement, and you can’t hold anyone liable for any sort of copyright infringement by anyone (whether it’s direct, contributory, or vicarious liability) without first establishing that there is some underlying case of direct infringement for which some person(s) is/are directly liable and for which the defendant(s) have some plausible connection to in some way, shape, or form. Thus, the plaintiff still has to allege and prove that they possess valid ownership of the relevant right(s) associated with the allegedly infringed copyright, that that copyright was properly registered with the US Copyright Office, and that the allegedly infringing material does, in fact, copy from the copyrighted material. Without that, the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Additionally, if the copied material is uncopyrightable (such as ideas, scenes a faire, or facts) or in the public domain (such as Shakespeare’s works) or the use falls under one of the exceptions to copyright infringement (such as de minimus use or fair use), then the allegedly infringing material is not, in fact, infringing, so there is no copyright infringement in that case for anyone to be held liable for at all. These elements can be determined at any stage of litigation (transfer of venue, dismissal, summary judgement, trial, reconsideration, or appeal), depending on the situation.
And, as I noted earlier, the DMCA isn’t that hard to comply with, anyways. You’re given a lot of leeway to comply. But let’s say that it is difficult to comply with. That’s only evidence that copyright law is too restrictive.
Counterpoint: this website is dependent on the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision, and I don’t believe anyone would argue that it is owned or run by any larger companies.
Also, again, the DMCA (including its safe-harbor provision) is a part of US copyright law, and US copyright law does not in any way match what you’ve been claiming about it (even without the DMCA or just excluding its safe-harbor provision). You are completely wrong about what either the rest or the entirety of US copyright law actually says and does, and regarding what is considered infringement and who is liable for it when it occurs.
Really, you seem confused about what copyright law is, and you also seem to confuse discussing/determining the boundaries of what is considered copyright infringement and/or the conditions for one to be held liable for someone else’s infringement with trying to find ways to infringe or not follow copyright law yourself and not be held liable for it. That’s not how it works at all. It’s not about finding ways to infringe and not be held liable; it’s about what is actually considered infringement and who is actually liable for it. If you follow the DMCA’s safe-harbor provision and are not otherwise liable for infringement, you are following copyright law and you are not committing copyright infringement.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is. No one else can force you to use a specific library or something like that. Do you have any substantive arguments to the contrary?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but what specifically do you find onerous about GPL?
More importantly, you’re only proving the point that all new creative or useful works (including software) build off of existing works and knowledge. After all, you just said you use a base system created by someone else, which is the point that PaulT and that AC was making. It also disproves all the claims you made in your past few comments about not having any viable options for libraries, that you shouldn’t use others’ works in your own, or that you don’t use anyone else’s works in your own.
As for the “strip-away-layers thing”, as you call it, there are plenty of ways to still have significant flexibility, and it has nothing to do with copyright at all, nor does it disprove or really anything anyone else has said. And that’s assuming that that is actually necessary or preferable, which isn’t always the case.
Next >>