None at all. I've no idea who it is and it may not be Hamilton as he only started repeating that trash long after the original troll posts were made.
I managed to convince most of the carriers that the posts were by a troll since he handily reposted them on various locations using similar handles. He even contacted one person who had taken issue with one of my posts and wound her up a treat. To my great amusement, while giving credence to his posts she had embedded screenshots of his emails to her. I took a screenshot of the entire post and used it as evidence that the poster was a troll. When I pointed out to her that I'd been using it to exonerate myself, she took that blog post down. We're on better terms now.
The troll seems to have disappeared and I've not been troubled by him since. Since ROR (the only holdout) grants the option to post a defence, I did, so every time Hamilton links to it, he links to the proof that the poster was trolling. My reputation is intact and ROR's took a nosedive for knowingly hosting troll posts. If you can't rely on them to provide useful information, what good are they? I have pointed this out to Hamilton, who occasionally forgets. It's a minor nuisance, if that.
Makes a great story, though, and proves my point: it's your conduct, more than what others say about you, that makes or breaks your reputation.
The former employer (I was promoted soon after the incident, then left of my own accord three years later) asked me to obtain proof that I wasn't being investigated by the police, which I duly did. I blogged extensively about it. The whole thing was weird. It seems to have been about someone trying to prove that what people say about you has a bigger impact on your reputation than your own conduct. I think I won: I don't go around threatening people or anything like that.
It's a funny story to share with friends or to use as a cautionary tale but it was damn scary at the time -- I thought I was going to lose my job. Thankfully my bosses aren't stupid and once I got the email from the police to prove I wasn't being investigated for allegedly extorting someone that was the end of it.
Re: Break out the sledgehammer, you're not quite obvious enough
I get what Tim is saying, but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. With "reporting" including propaganda targeting individuals and groups for violence (start with the dog-whistling British right wing press*), it's hard to make a choice about what to suppress in the hope of prevent atrocities and what to allow in the interest of journalism and free speech, etc.
We're mean to each other online here in the West. This sometimes results in doxxing and SWATting, among other (occasionally dangerous) inconveniences, but it pales in comparison to people hacking other people to death and sticking it up on YouTube, then calling for more violence against THEM.
That the divisions we're seeing now were created and fomented by the British in the course of their empire-building seems to have escaped the population; they just hate, and when they hate, they kill. If you read the link above, you'll notice that counter-speech results in harsh reprisals for "siding with the enemy." Prime Minister Modi is exacerbating this because Boogeyman Politics is powerful and effective against a population that has anger issues already due to poverty and overcrowding. With an immortal Boogeyman and an unlimited supply of scapegoats you can only imagine the carnage that would be unleashed if Kashmiri (and other) rebels continue to provoke India.
I don't like suppressing speech. People should behave themselves. While these two statements are mutually exclusive, expect more repression in the name of security, law, and order.
Sorry, I don't have an answer to this but it's not as cut and dried as '"Let Kashmiri rebels celebrate their rebellious acts in the media, thereby encouraging others to join in" to promote free speech.'
And no, for the record, I don't expect the daily parade of atrocities to stop if India succeeds in shutting down dissenting speech from Kashmir. I guess I'm just pleading for a bit more nuance in discussing the subject. It's an Indian problem and Western solutions will not work.
*[Judges are the] enemies of the people, crush the saboteurs, etc.
Meanwhile, critics of Jeremy Corbyn forget that if he did come to power he wouldn't have the authority to implement any of his policies unless he could get them through Parliament -- and he's unlikely to win a big enough majority to make that happen. Even if Labour win with enough of a majority to form a government, it's riven with splits and its right wing has mostly sided with the Tories. In fact, Corbyn even whipped his MPs to vote for Tory Brexit policy. The point is, not all of them are as far to the left as he is, and his policies are mainstream for Europe, not madly left wing. If Corbyn is a threat at all to national security, apparently it's because he's against nuclear weapons (he wouldn't be able to get rid of them) and won't agree to either regime change in Middle Eastern countries (presumably with an eye on the Iraq debacle) or to stop sending aid to Al Qaeda.
The country would benefit from and end to austerity because we need demand in a consumer economy and before anyone hops in to claim the Tories are fiscally responsible, I should point out that both the deficit and the national debt have risen since they came to power and they love to waste other people's money. They're idiots.
Now Matt Hancock wants to waste our money on sequencing the genome of every newborn -- how long till this is compulsory for every passport applicant? Now imagine the abuses. No thanks. While I'm basically conservative there's no way my conscience will allow me to vote Tory in this election. The NHS is not safe in their hands. Nor is our economy -- or our security and privacy. Anyone who votes in the upcoming election needs to bear this in mind.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re:
I'll be using a Zimmer frame then, my friend.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re: Yes! We have no morals.
Indeed. Next time they shoot their mouths off about it we can point this incident out to them as an example of actual copyright theft.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None at all. I've no idea who it is and it may not be Hamilton as he only started repeating that trash long after the original troll posts were made.
I managed to convince most of the carriers that the posts were by a troll since he handily reposted them on various locations using similar handles. He even contacted one person who had taken issue with one of my posts and wound her up a treat. To my great amusement, while giving credence to his posts she had embedded screenshots of his emails to her. I took a screenshot of the entire post and used it as evidence that the poster was a troll. When I pointed out to her that I'd been using it to exonerate myself, she took that blog post down. We're on better terms now.
The troll seems to have disappeared and I've not been troubled by him since. Since ROR (the only holdout) grants the option to post a defence, I did, so every time Hamilton links to it, he links to the proof that the poster was trolling. My reputation is intact and ROR's took a nosedive for knowingly hosting troll posts. If you can't rely on them to provide useful information, what good are they? I have pointed this out to Hamilton, who occasionally forgets. It's a minor nuisance, if that.
Makes a great story, though, and proves my point: it's your conduct, more than what others say about you, that makes or breaks your reputation.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. Okay, incapable people. I think we can agree on that.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re: Re: Re:
The former employer (I was promoted soon after the incident, then left of my own accord three years later) asked me to obtain proof that I wasn't being investigated by the police, which I duly did. I blogged extensively about it. The whole thing was weird. It seems to have been about someone trying to prove that what people say about you has a bigger impact on your reputation than your own conduct. I think I won: I don't go around threatening people or anything like that.
It's a funny story to share with friends or to use as a cautionary tale but it was damn scary at the time -- I thought I was going to lose my job. Thankfully my bosses aren't stupid and once I got the email from the police to prove I wasn't being investigated for allegedly extorting someone that was the end of it.
On the post: Federal Court Says ICE, CBP's Suspicionless Searches Of Electronic Devices Is Unconstitutional
Re:
It doesn't. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
ACLU has been fighting this for years.
On the post: Twitter And Instagram Both Begin Experiments In Decreasing The More Socially Questionable Incentives Of Their Platforms
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
your community decides who the trolls are
That's what the red report button is for. If enough of us report the post, it gets hidden. I think it takes five.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re:
Maybe we should stop electing old people to high office. And thick people.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re:
^This.
On the post: Biden Spreads False Info By Saying That Taking Away Section 230 Will Make Facebook Liable For Spreading False Info
Re:
Actually, a troll did that to me, Stephen. I was hauled into the office and asked to explain myself when they contacted my employers directly.
On the post: Hong Kong Court Hands Down Protest-Targeting Order Banning Online Content That 'Incites Violence'
Re: ???
There are immigrants in every country.
On the post: The Color Magenta, Or How T-Mobile Thinks It Owns A General Color
Re:
That is many shades of wrong, AC. No one should own colours. Ever.
On the post: John Oliver Takes On SLAPP Suits And Anti-SLAPP Laws With A Grand Musical Number
Re:
Quick! Everyone in Red States contact their critters and tell them this! It's more likely than not that the Baron is correct.
On the post: India Is Stifling Kashmir Journalists And Twitter Is Helping Get The Job Done
Re: Someone Else's Problem
It's easier to hold it to account in America.
On the post: India Is Stifling Kashmir Journalists And Twitter Is Helping Get The Job Done
Re: Break out the sledgehammer, you're not quite obvious enough
I get what Tim is saying, but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. With "reporting" including propaganda targeting individuals and groups for violence (start with the dog-whistling British right wing press*), it's hard to make a choice about what to suppress in the hope of prevent atrocities and what to allow in the interest of journalism and free speech, etc.
We're mean to each other online here in the West. This sometimes results in doxxing and SWATting, among other (occasionally dangerous) inconveniences, but it pales in comparison to people hacking other people to death and sticking it up on YouTube, then calling for more violence against THEM.
That the divisions we're seeing now were created and fomented by the British in the course of their empire-building seems to have escaped the population; they just hate, and when they hate, they kill. If you read the link above, you'll notice that counter-speech results in harsh reprisals for "siding with the enemy." Prime Minister Modi is exacerbating this because Boogeyman Politics is powerful and effective against a population that has anger issues already due to poverty and overcrowding. With an immortal Boogeyman and an unlimited supply of scapegoats you can only imagine the carnage that would be unleashed if Kashmiri (and other) rebels continue to provoke India.
I don't like suppressing speech. People should behave themselves. While these two statements are mutually exclusive, expect more repression in the name of security, law, and order.
Sorry, I don't have an answer to this but it's not as cut and dried as '"Let Kashmiri rebels celebrate their rebellious acts in the media, thereby encouraging others to join in" to promote free speech.'
And no, for the record, I don't expect the daily parade of atrocities to stop if India succeeds in shutting down dissenting speech from Kashmir. I guess I'm just pleading for a bit more nuance in discussing the subject. It's an Indian problem and Western solutions will not work.
*[Judges are the] enemies of the people, crush the saboteurs, etc.
On the post: Too Many Streaming Exclusives Is Already Starting To Piss Users Off
Re: Re: Re: Amazon is the WORST for this
Uh, guys? Isn't the entire show on the B5 website and free to view?
On the post: CBP Now Has Access To NSA, CIA Collections
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why does no one have this debate over Mitt Romney, who was born in Mexico?
On the post: Health Minister Wants Full-Genome Sequencing Of Every Newborn Child In UK To Become Routine
Re: Re:
It'll mostly be concern trolling. RE: Eugenics, etc., it never really went away, it just hunkered down and waited for an opportunity to pop up again.
It'll happen quietly, then the protests will begin, there will be an enquiry and compensation will be paid out. Again.
On the post: Health Minister Wants Full-Genome Sequencing Of Every Newborn Child In UK To Become Routine
Re: Netflix anyone?
When satire can't be any more ridiculous than what's actually happening you know you're in trouble. We're already there.
On the post: Health Minister Wants Full-Genome Sequencing Of Every Newborn Child In UK To Become Routine
The Nasty Party
I'm trying to work out how any sane and reasonable person could vote Tory.
Boris Johnson is a threat to the economy with his disastrous pro-Brexit stance and to national security because he can't keep his gob shut. He's currently withholding a report on Russian interference in the Referendum until after the upcoming general election.
Meanwhile, critics of Jeremy Corbyn forget that if he did come to power he wouldn't have the authority to implement any of his policies unless he could get them through Parliament -- and he's unlikely to win a big enough majority to make that happen. Even if Labour win with enough of a majority to form a government, it's riven with splits and its right wing has mostly sided with the Tories. In fact, Corbyn even whipped his MPs to vote for Tory Brexit policy. The point is, not all of them are as far to the left as he is, and his policies are mainstream for Europe, not madly left wing. If Corbyn is a threat at all to national security, apparently it's because he's against nuclear weapons (he wouldn't be able to get rid of them) and won't agree to either regime change in Middle Eastern countries (presumably with an eye on the Iraq debacle) or to stop sending aid to Al Qaeda.
The country would benefit from and end to austerity because we need demand in a consumer economy and before anyone hops in to claim the Tories are fiscally responsible, I should point out that both the deficit and the national debt have risen since they came to power and they love to waste other people's money. They're idiots.
Now Matt Hancock wants to waste our money on sequencing the genome of every newborn -- how long till this is compulsory for every passport applicant? Now imagine the abuses. No thanks. While I'm basically conservative there's no way my conscience will allow me to vote Tory in this election. The NHS is not safe in their hands. Nor is our economy -- or our security and privacy. Anyone who votes in the upcoming election needs to bear this in mind.
Next >>