SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DECISION – 'aristarchus':
Introduction:
Actions have consequences. This is not a matter of free speech or censorship.
Doxing "Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly revealing previously private personal information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet." This is the definition upon which we are basing this decision. Legally, the term does not appear to be well-defined in the US but doxing is also covered by laws relating to harassment, threats, and abuse. Elsewhere in the world, the definitions are sometimes more clearly defined but might cover a broader interpretation than the US definitions. Which interpretation is applicable could depend on the location of the perpetrator.
Background:
We first noticed that something was amiss in late 2020. Submissions from 'aristarchus' would contain certain words, phrases and names which were apparently unconnected with the rest of the content. We were unable to understand their significance at that time, but they would be meaningful to the intended victim. (Story submissions by 'aristarchus' often contain additional material that he has inserted himself.) In almost all cases we removed them prior to posting the submission as a story because they had no bearing on the rest of the submission.
In late 2021 the doxing became more blatant both in comments that were made to stories and as well as on IRC. We also contacted the victim (by now it was obvious to us who it was) who responded and explained what had been published, where and when. We also discovered additional material that had not been seen by the victim. He had been suffering this abuse for a considerable time.
Please Note:
This investigation is not something that has been carried out purely on a whim by the admins on this site. During it we have consulted with and taken advice from a representative of the board of directors. (As an aside, SoylentNews PBC has never been 'run' by 'TheMightyBuzzard' or any of the current admin staff whose names you know well.) This is a serious matter and the investigation was conducted with utmost discretion by a very small team.
To ensure that 'aristarchus' is aware of this Decision he will receive an Admin-to-User message and an email to the address associated with his username drawing his attention to it.
Publishing Personal Information:
It is now apparent that 'aristarchus' has doxed at least one person in our community, and possibly others who may have left the site rather than suffer the harassment. This is not a single act, but has taken place repeatedly over a significant period of time.
'aristarchus' has published the victim's full name, where the victim lives, and the victim's employer. Presumably he believes this information to be accurate. We have seen additional comments that contain threats and state very personal information, such that posting them here would likely do further damage. We are trying to be discreet. If it were you, would you want us to air all the information that has been revealed? This action might also have placed other members of the victim's family at risk from abuse or embarrassment.
It is obvious that 'aristarchus' has conducted research away from this site. SoylentNews PBC does not hold such information nor has it been ever been declared in any comments.
We can only guess at the true reason behind these disclosures: at the very least it appears to be a smear campaign.
What We Have Done So Far:
- The victim has a full copy of all the evidence that we have been able to trace to date. The evidence was all publicly accessible. We are not aware of a compromise of any other community members' information. We are not going to indicate where this information might be found.
- We have made a separate backup of the database to ensure that evidence should not be lost.
- We have removed personal information from database comments and IRC logs where possible.
- It is entirely for the victim to decide whether to seek legal redress in this matter.
Options:
There are 2 options open to us.
(1) Permanent Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a full and permanent ban from this community.
- His account(s) will be completely disabled.
- Any further posting he may make to the site will be treated as Spam.
(2) Temporary Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a temporary ban of 3 months where his account(s) will be disabled. He will be able to restore his 'aristarchus' account when his ban ends. His conduct during this time will be taken into consideration before his account is reactivated.
- During the ban 'aristarchus' may still post on the site as an 'Anonymous Coward', with all the limitations that are associated with that i.e. no journal, no ability to moderate, etc. Whether he wishes to make his identity known in his AC posts is entirely up to him.
- During and subsequent to the ban he is to act as we would expect any other member of this community to act. He is not to disrupt other discussions nor is he to continue to complain about his treatment. The ban is entirely a consequence of his own actions. We will not discuss this matter publicly. If he has complaints he may contact us via email as usual.
- He is to refrain immediately and completely from harassing other members of this community.
- Any serious future abuses by 'aristarchus' can result in a permanent ban being imposed without further warning.
We acknowledge that 'aristarchus' regularly makes insightful and interesting observations and we recognize that he has many supporters on this site. That is why we have offered the option of a conditional Temporary ban.
Action/Conclusion:
'aristarchus' must now decide which ban he wishes to accept. This is not negotiable – there are no other options open to him. If he does not respond either by commenting here or by email within 48 hours of the release of this Decision then we will assume that he has chosen the Temporary Ban and he is bound by the conditions stated within it. He may elect to change to a Permanent ban at any time.
For legal reasons we do not intend to comment further. The community can now see why several of the site admins have been putting in long working days, sometimes in excess of 12 hours since just before Christmas. We are exhausted and need to have a period of normal activity so that we can recover. We urge the community to be circumspect and restrained in the discussions to this Decision – there is little to be gained from inflaming the current situation any further. We ask you not to speculate about the identity of the victim.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @02:44PM (8 children)
doxing is bad. very, very bad.
like a cardinal sin on the intarwebz.
it is also very effective.
but some people are RL a-holes and a good wikipedia definition has pictures :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:09PM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @03:58AM
Agreed, but I do know of one person who completely left the internet because of a threat to dox. But if I understood the situation correctly, doxxing could have resulted in his father being killed.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @04:35AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @09:24AM (4 children)
So what? How were they harmed? They had agreed to Drupal's CoC, they broke it, so sad too bad ux to have that particular CoC.'
That's like joining a fundamentalist evangelical christian church and then being outed for being pro-abortion, in favour of same sex marriage, etc. Their organization, their rules. Why would you want to support an organization that hates you?
Sounds to me like he harmed himself by agreeing to the original CoC. Totally avoidable, self-inflicted damage.
If he wanted to, he was free to fork the project if it was that important to him. So how was he harmed? He's now free not to have to hide who he is, he's free from associating with a certain group of assholes, , he can always fork the project, sounds like a win-win.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @01:29PM (3 children)
Disagree on that. It was merely asserted that the target had done so.
Let me answer those two questions in turn. First, the answer to "So what?" is that this is an example of a doxxing that caused harm. To the second question, the developer was removed from positions of responsibility and publicly embarrassed. But you would have learned that, if you had read my post.
No, it's not.
And the mugging victim is freed of the responsibility of all that cash. Terming harm as freedom is just some weird Orwellian bullshit. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean the rest of us have to take you seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:06PM (2 children)
Your argument is as stupid as the gay couple that shopped around until they found a baker that wouldn't make them a gay wedding cake. Why would you ever want to give your business to someone who hates you? it's performative bullshit, same as this guy whining that he's been excluded from a group whose CoC he doesn't agree with.
Just walk the fuck away. Nothing of value has been lost if you fork the project because you ran afoul of the CoC.
Or he can just find something else to do. Same as people who find themselves in conflict with their religion can just walk away and enjoy their newfound freedom and opportunities.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @06:21PM (1 child)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @07:20PM
The entire objection to the current CoC movement is that they are enforced unequally and often worded in ways that encourage such abuse. Simply being accused is often enough to qualify as a violation (it brings disrepute to the organization) if you don't have enough friends on the review committee.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 03 2022, @02:50PM (22 children)
I am a free speech absolutist. I have always been vocal about that. I have put my money where my mouth is by buying gift memberships for other members of the community with strong, often beleaguered views; I have done that to support the site and do what I can to preserve its ecosystem as a free forum with a true diversity of opinion. I have given gift memberships to aristarchus, too, for those reasons.
So it is disappointing, to say the least, that aristarchus has been doxxing anyone. Would he approve of another community member from a different part of the political spectrum doing the same to him? He should reflect on that. His actions have been shameful.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:34PM
If only it were that clear cut. Most of us draw the line at threats of physical violence, however, some jurisdictions permit it against an individual engaging in criminal harassment. Smear campaigns can easily amount to that. Social media has allowed aggressors to play the victim on an individual level or to spread false allegations at a scale unprecedented in human history. This problem seems more concerning than overly-simplistic constructs like "misinformation" or "hate speech".
Did you honestly expect differently from someone couching his behavior behind appeals to free speech while having regularly mocked the entire concept as "freeze peaches"?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:00PM (16 children)
Another free speech absolutist here, who has been on the sharp end of some rather nasty people.
In my view, aristarchus can say what he wants wherever he finds a host for his stupidities and insanities (and oh lordy have those been on display for a while now) but these games have a way of ending when mister I'm-not-touching-yooouuuu gets an answer along the lines of: "The muzzle of my shotgun ain't touching you either, but it sure is pointed your way." Speech can have consequences.
As far as Soylent, they aren't obliged to be a vehicle for his stupid insanity, and he's clearly broken the rules. He can suck it up, and whatever evidence they have can properly go to authorities as part of a case of stalking, intimidation or whatever.
But he can keep crowing, like the rooster that doesn't know the farmer's wife has a sharp knife and a hankering for chicken soup.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:26PM (15 children)
"Another free speech absolutist here"
.......
"As far as Soylent, they aren't obliged to be a vehicle for his stupid insanity, and he's clearly broken the rules. He can suck it up"
mmHmmmmmmm #Curious #BrainsNotExploding?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:35AM (14 children)
Aristarchus can express whatever demented views the voices in his head tell him at any given time. The same applies to Hazuki, APK, Ethanol_Fueled, kurenai.tsubasa and gewg_.
That places zero obligation on anyone else to support, promulgate, record or even pay any attention to them.
Aristarchus does not own soylentnews, either wholly or in part. Ergo, he has no power requiring soylentnews to become his own little masturbatory platform. In fact, inasmuch as he has broken the established rules of those who do run the place, he can fully expect soylentnews to tell him to take a flying fuck at a rolling lifesaver.
None of the above affects his freedom of speech. He can write whatever he wants with his urine in snow, and the people who run soylentnews can restrict what they run to what they please. Maybe he can join Azuma on a street corner somewhere, wearing sandwich boards and screaming about the raelians polluting everybody's precious bodily fluids with fluoride or whatever it is that creams their jeans.
Free speech doesn't mean forcing others to be your pet megaphone. If you think that fact should cause any brains to explode, the one with a problem is you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:13AM (1 child)
If he does, he best tie a toothpick across his ass, so he doesn't fall in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:21PM
Kudos! Thanks for a Friday giggle.
You win an internet point.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:09AM (3 children)
While I generally agree, I'm going to make a small caveat: When the public forum is effectively (or actually) privately owned then, as in any monopoly position, the forum owner's rights are justly limited. That's why common carrier laws apply to communications systems and not just transportation. SN obviously doesn't meet that requirement, but the point stands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:09PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @07:31PM
I do realize that most platforms aren't common carrier. As I said, my caveat applies to monopolies.
The problem is that communities need to moderate or they get overrun by spammers, but that opens them up to liability for any content they do allow, forcing them to stifle free speech. That's why laws like Section 230 are required. There needs to be a middle ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:24PM
Sure, monopoly/monopsony situations change the power dynamic, but that's in no way relevant to soylentnews. Let aristarchus go to the green site and mess up his classical grammar there. No difference to the soylents.
Or, to put it another way: we will have a lot of warning before soylentnews even becomes a major mover in public forum/news aggregation, and we're not close.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:09PM (7 children)
De-platforming and other expressions of cancel culture absolutely do violate freedom of speech. If you grant a man freedom of the press, and then take away his computer, his typewriter, his paper and pencil, lock him inside his house, and tie his hands, then you have most certainly taken away his freedom of press.
It's the reason freedom of speech and our other human rights are called "rights," and not, "minor legal impediments to oppression."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:14PM
I would have just yanked the account - not even a message to ari saying so, because he could weaponize it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:28PM
Not so fast.
Private platforms can enjoy all the editorial control they want, otherwise you're imposing forced speech on them.
If you silence all his avenues including using his own property, there's a problem.
If you remove public goods from his access for the purpose (such as publically funded universities) then there's a problem as well.
None of this even resembles aristarchus's situation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday February 04 2022, @05:13PM (3 children)
Freedom of the press has only ever applied to those who own a printing press.
If you want to borrow someone else's press (as we all do here), then you need to abide by whatever rules they offer, or find another press. You have no right to force your local newspaper to spread your speech for you.
If you want to host your own website, you can say whatever you want there (provided the ISP renting you access to their internet connection doesn't object.).
Similarly, freedom of speech lets you stand on a street corner saying whatever you want (within certain limits). But it doesn't entitle you to a bullhorn. Nor does it mean you can do so while you're in my church, bar, etc., where I'm free to demand that you leave.
There's certainly a major conflict when the majority(?) of public discourse is taking place in private venues that may have their own agenda to discretely promote or suppress particular viewpoints, or even just promote controversy and fermongering to increase engagement. And we probably need to create some new laws on the topic if we want to avoid tearing our society apart. But there's currently no legal basis to do so.
Personally I'm in favor of classifying any social media site that engages in any sort of promotion or suppression of posts, algorithmically or otherwise, as a publisher of those posts - thus revoking Section 230 protections from the likes of Facebook and others that decide on ordering and distribution of users posts. Likely destroying their existing business model under a tidal wave of legal harassment, and probably forcing them to become something far more akin to a BBS with a "friends" filter, that simply displays all the posts from all your "friends" in the order they were posted so they could get back under the shelter of 230, if they don't close their doors entirely.
But a private forum like this, where posts are ordered in a simple structured chronology (might have to disable "highest rated first" - I think we have that option?). I don't see that things can be much improved. They couldn't long survive the legal harassment they would be likely to face as a publisher, and few people worth talking to want to hang out at a bar where the bouncers won't "invite" the worst creeps and assholes to leave. And the assholes and creeps change from bar to bar - If I started running my mouth off in a neo-Nazi bar I'd fully expect to be "asked" to leave, by the patrons if not the bouncers. I may think they're some of the lowest scum our species has to offer, but they've still have every right to congregate with each other in peace. But only in the in public, and in the places they are welcomed - not in *my* bar.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 05 2022, @03:33PM (2 children)
If that is so, then blacks, Jews, and women have no legal leg to stand on when trying to join country clubs constituted for white men only. The phone company, whose network they own, is under no obligation to allow you to call whomever you want if they decide they don't like you. The cloud computing service you pay can decide to de-platform you if they don't like you.
It doesn't take a whole lot of extrapolation of that argument before every freedom is completely and definitively extinguished.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @04:35PM
Try again.
The question at hand is different in various cases. Clubs with commercial significance, for example, were crowbarred open once they reached a certain size (I think a NY court set the size at 50 members? Might have been 10 - it's been decades). The phone companies operate under common carrier rules, which don't apply to (for example) newspapers. And cloud computing services already do that, so here we are.
If the problem that you're trying to solve is the one of forced speech, then ownership is relevant but common carriers aren't in that position, country clubs aren't in that position, and cloud services aren't in that position so all your analogies need work. The closest approximation might be the cloud service - but they already exercise discretion on their clients. The next closest might be freedom of (dis)association in the case of clubs, but where those clubs are in a position of what amounts to monopoly social power, they find their rules rewritten.
There's a lot of legal landscape to review.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday February 05 2022, @05:05PM
Your freedom is always in conflict with that of those around you - often expressed as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." The art of maintaining a free society is finding a balance between the two.
>If that is so, then blacks, Jews, and women have no legal leg to stand on when trying to join country clubs constituted for white men only.
No, because we have decided as a society that rectifying the systemic unjust treatment of certain groups (women, minorities, religious groups, handicapped, etc.) outweighs your right to refuse them service on those grounds.
>The phone company, whose network they own, is under no obligation to allow you to call whomever you want if they decide they don't like you.
I believe telecoms do have some legal obligations we put in place due to the historic abuses of their monopoly position. But beyond those, yep - they're free to offer you, or not, whatever services they choose. And you're free to buy them as offered or find another provider.
>The cloud computing service you pay can decide to de-platform you if they don't like you.
Absolutely, so long as they dislike you for reasons other than being a member of a protected class.
I'm free to refuse to work for you because I don't like the color of your hair, the way you smell, or your attitude. Just not because you're black, a woman, etc.
At least until some systemic abuses of that freedom get bad enough to justify us collectively removing my rights to expand yours.
If you can make a good case that Group X is suffering systemic injustice across society, then you have grounds to argue for expanding their rights at the expense of everyone else. Without that justification, you're just saying the assholes should be allowed to run wild and everyone else just has to put up with them. That's not freedom - that's tyranny of the assholes.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 13 2022, @04:21PM
And that feature-creep toward enforced silence is why I too am a free speech absolutist.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:41AM (3 children)
Same, and yet I have no desire to listen to a neo-crapzi spew hate in my ear, and will turn such people out of my home or establishment. Free speech is the public sphere. But if you publish a hateful booklet, I'm still free to not hire you because of it, or to tell you to get off my yard.
In this case, publishing non-actionable, public information, in a way that doesn't incite violence or whatever, in their own space wouldn't be wrong (I can publish a blog post with a restaurant's public address, eg.).
But it's also not wrong of us to take control of our community-owned whiteboard. Because, note, SN is not a true public commons, it's closer to a co-operative (and it surprises me it's not organized as one), and SN is ours in the ownership sense, and we can refuse service to doxxers just like we can refuse link spammers and malware spreaders.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:18PM (2 children)
Free speech is for odious speech, not for speech you/we agree with.
Aristarchus or any other opinionated person can say what he wants. You and I can ignore him. It's super easy.
For example, I never read a single post of Michael David Crawford's. I didn't have the energy to wend my way through his worldview. Likewise I never responded to or wasted time on Ethanol-fueled.
The real issue here is, I believe, that aristarchus went beyond saying things, to working to harass another member of the community. Personally, I treat any internet forum like a PTA meeting or some other public forum. I could say something strongly worded in a PTA meeting and somebody else could follow me home, stake out my house, and attack me or my family, because the world carries certain inherent risks. But we leave the house and engage in the world because that is what it means to be alive, and speaking our mind is an essential part of living in a free, democratic country.
Bear in mind that if somebody does follow you home and attack your family because you exercised your first amendment rights, then you get to exercise your second amendment rights.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @01:45AM
Yes, but free speech is valid in a particular domain.
That domain is not SN.
Ari is welcome and legally entitled to set up his own website or newspaper or soapbox/megaphone or whatever where he can say whatever he wants.
SN has zero obligation, legal or moral, to put Ari to the SN mouthpiece.
Free speech is not the right to use things owned by others to speak. It's the right to speak. Ari has no particular legal right to demand to voice himself on SN. We have no particular legal, ethical, or moral right to amplify or host his voice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15 2022, @04:43AM
You are arguing freedom of speech when this is closer to a freedom of association argument.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:01PM (32 children)
So all this is publicly available information, none of it is protected personal information, and there's no legal grounds for suing.
Got it. Seriously, who cares?
aristarchus is a drama queen; and if you had just ignored it there would be no big deal, as you have admitted most people wouldn't have even noticed it, or just dismissed it as more noise from the noisy one.
Of course now that you've drawn attention to it .. (Streisand effect much? Actually, not really, because NOBODY CARES).
This could have been mitigated by users if metamods worked. Nover gonna happen, as janrinok has admitted.
So you take action on obfuscated publishing of non-protected publicly available information, but not racist or other hate speech. Because THAT would be censorship. (scratches head).
Suggestion for the next poll:
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:27PM (5 children)
On the other hand it's a thing that happens with every small-approaching-moderate sized community online, where one person just constantly pushes some boundary, usually directly at the expense of someone else in the community, until the heretofor adequate community standard of "in the name of free expression, we can all collectively tolerate anything problematic" gets tested.
And every time it shatters into 3 camps
1. The directly aggrieved and those sympathetic to what happened to them
2. The "can't we just go back to how things were" crowd
3. The "Why don't we just let anything go" crowd
If group 1 becomes the most annoying to the community(by way of constantly demanding concessions for their concerns), group 2 joins group 3 and you get 8chan. If group 3 gets most annoying(by way of intentionally poking at people in group 1), you tend to get increasingly specific, increasingly strict policies, often oriented around whatever obnoxious thing started the issue, and constant debates about whether X or Y "counts" as breaking the rules.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:13PM (4 children)
Also, I'd add another important camp to your list; those who decide "enough is enough" and just go elsewhere, never to return. In my experience this group is more often and not some of the forum members who tend to be the most valuable in terms of providing quality posts, but expect a high signal to noise ratio in return, and as that bar gets lowered as a result the remainder have less and less incentive to remain either.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:16PM (2 children)
Bad money drives out good. Bad posters drive out good posters. Sometimes you will hear why they are leaving but only if you are lucky and have kept lines of communication open.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:39PM (1 child)
Absolutely, I stopped posting under my name because I got tired of wading through his troll posts to find legitimate responses. His posts were pretty ml much just indicators of how dumb he is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:22PM
Goodness, post under your moniker. If he responds, so what? The instant you see his username, skip it and read the next reply.
I have occasionally been targeted by trolls. I don't even waste one nanosecond on their existence.
It's super easy to do, and only takes a little practice to become muscle memory.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday February 05 2022, @07:11PM
We all did that to slashdot after all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:35PM (23 children)
There are crazy people in the world.
Some who cannot control their emotions.
Even some who cannot distinguish online from real life. Others cannot distinguish facts from fantasy.
The phenomena of Swatting should enlighten us as to how some are detached from reality, as if it is a video game, and unable to foresee possible consequences or outcomes of actions.
The Centauri traded Earth jump gate technology in exchange for our superior hair mousse formulas.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:46PM (22 children)
Indeed. And ari has threatened that very thing. Repeatedly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:47PM
If true, that should warrant a permaban.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 03 2022, @07:15PM (13 children)
I'd like to see some citations for that allegation...
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @12:21AM (6 children)
Example 2 [soylentnews.org]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:15AM (4 children)
Garbage like that is why I've never had an account here.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:25PM (3 children)
That is weak. Sure, stay anonymous if you want, but staying anonymous because meanies like aristarchus might say mean things to you is pitiful. Especially since using a registered account is still anonymous unless you use your real name.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 04 2022, @05:28PM (2 children)
Pseudonymous != anonymous. They're two very different concepts with only modest overlap.
Most obvious modern example is Bitcoin - the fan club likes to pretend it's anonymous, and nobody can track your transactions, which is obvious bullshit to anyone that stops to think a moment. It's a completely public pseudonymous ledger that keeps a permanent record of every transaction you ever made, with your dubious anonymity protected only by most people's lack of interest or assets to identify the person behind the pseudonym.
On forums the price of psuedonymity instead of anonymity is dealing with trolls and the like rather than the the DEA breaking in your door for selling drugs/weapons/slaves online - but there's still a price to be paid, and it sometimes sucks. No shame in not wanting to deal with that. Especially if you don't have enough to say to be worth building up a pseudonymous reputation.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 05 2022, @03:36PM (1 child)
I agree that anonymity better suits people who fear discovery. I believe we should live with courage in our convictions.
It's a lifestyle choice, a question of character.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @03:26AM
If you really felt that strongly, then dox yourself. Live with the courage in your convictions.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 13 2022, @05:15PM
I regard that sort of thing as mere spewy nonsense, bordering on comedy. It's just words.
Unless and until it becomes actions.
Which has happened; I remember some of the Usenet flame wars that spilled over into Real Life. One guy ended up in jail (no idea if for legit charges, was the sort of life-ruining accusation that can be faked) and another lost his job because Big Company wearied of the harassment.
Stupid spew is meh, whatever. I don't have to read it. But from the actions described, our Ari did take it out into Real Life, and that crosses the line.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:28AM (5 children)
He (jokingly?) threatened to dox Runaway on IRC at least once, IIRC. Not sure if he posted any of that on the site though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @03:52AM (3 children)
> Just a prank bro
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:23PM (2 children)
The real question is why his account was never perma-banned. And this question has been asked before. His behaviour was worse than ari's.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 13 2022, @05:26PM (1 child)
Speech is not action.
Speech is not violence.
Hate speech (hate against whom?) is not violence.
Ari being a silly repetitive cunt with his words in a public forum is not violence.
Saying "I want you to die in a fire and I'm gonna burn you" in a public forum is not violence. (Meh. Be more creative.)
Ari actually doing shit to harm another out in Real Life is an ACTION.
If you come to my house and set it on fire, that's an ACTION.
See the difference??
But some folks equate "speech we don't like" to "violence" because it gives them an excuse to be violent.
"He was gonna hit me, so I hit him back first."
-- Billy Martin
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14 2022, @10:41AM
Wow, nice, sane post, Reziac!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @01:19AM
Perhaps it was just one Soylentil warning another, in friendly fashion, that they were leaking a lot of personal information? But the advisee took it wrong, and panicked, and went to admin?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:49AM (6 children)
Wonder what liability this site would have if there is evidence of a dickhead calling for swatting and the site knows it and does nothing?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @04:39AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:20AM (4 children)
If someone on the site incites violence against another, even anonymously, and the victim is harmed because of it, SN could be sued as an accessory if the admins knew and did nothing about it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:40PM (3 children)
SN has a lot of decisions to make.
First, since "buck feta" is a failure (not even metamods will be implemented because the model of volunteers working on open source code as a way to burnish their cred with employers is long dead. plus PERL?? GTFO), what is possible going forward? Should have been encouraging debate on this instead of hand wringing over a right wing nutbar who leaked his personal info himself).
If nothing else as viable, what is the end game? Become a subreddit (would save on hosting costs and software maintenance).
Maybe dump irc? Multiple paths of communication is a time waster. Gotta monitor all of them. What a waste of energy. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake is a problem when it wastes time and energy.
And as a subreddit you're likely to get more people submitting stories, so you can require they be properly edited, etc., to avoid volunteers wasting their time. Someone submits a poorly formatted story, refer them to submission guidelines wand maybe explain where they got it wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:55PM
You're right! You should start a subreddit!
Let us all know, thanks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 04 2022, @11:52PM (1 child)
Wow. I guess you just don't get the point of SN. It's not to efficiently use your time. IRC is a well-used extension of that.
Really, what's the point of all this advice? It's a shitstorm in a teacup, right? There's no real problem in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14 2022, @10:46AM
We could dump khallow. Just a suggestion. Would clear up a lot of things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:46PM
The plot was thin. It was full of bad acting. I couldn't relate to any of the characters. The writing was trite and the drama was contrived. Everybody in the theater kept cat-calling at the screen - and that was the more entertaining than movie itself. There were no heroes.
I left early.
I check back now and then to see if anyone is left watching. I pity them.
True. Story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:04PM
As long as aristarchus were just drama-queening it up, complete with jazz hands, nobody much would have cared.
Drama queening in someone else's personal space might be expected to fetch him an elbow in the nose - oh, look.
I agree that the moderation system here is fucked up, but they're clearly never fixing that, more's the pity.
If someone wants to air a bigoted view, or "hate speech" (whatever that means this week), that's not particular to an individual, so the case isn't comparable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @03:21PM (8 children)
Anonymity has its benefits. I come here to hear and put forth information. I don't care from whose mouth it came. Therefore, anything other than AC holds no benefit that I can see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:38PM (4 children)
Indeed. (a different AC here) I remember years ago posting that I stay AC specifically to avoid being doxxed. The idea was of course poo-poo'd. Now it's happened.
Told ya so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:55PM (3 children)
I always post AC so everything I say stands alone. I don't want people's opinions of my views on social issues to color what they think about my views on science or technology. Or, often, my views on other social issues, since I don't fit neatly into either "camp." I'm relatively unconcerned about doxxing, because I live in a fortified compound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @08:50PM
This is why I've been posting AC, going all the way back to /. in the late 90s. It's also why I've always browsed at -1. For a while online forums popped up all over the place in the 00's and 10's because of freely available forum software (I can't remember any more what it was called, but phpBB or something like that). The feature of all of those sites were listing how many posts people made and having special recognition for the numbers of posts (various "badges" to display under their names), giving those people mostly undeserved credibility for their standing and opinions. That always rubbed me the wrong way.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:35PM (1 child)
That seems like a valid reason to post AC to me--avoid the rote tribalism. On the other hand, it lets you off the hook for not bringing rote tribalism to the table yourself. I post under a username because it's all too easy to sink into tit-for-tat, to set up feedback loops that do more harm than good. If we behave in real life and put our thoughts in cogent, reasoned arguments because we are in public view, then how can that do harm online?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 13 2022, @05:36PM
I post under my own handle because, as it's often put, I own my words: Yeah, I said whatever. (Tho by now I might say different words.)
It does somewhat act as a brake -- do I, as myself, really want to get into it with X about Y? do I care enough to make a reasoned argument?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:00PM (2 children)
An user name has the benefit that if you reply to a post and get a reply back, you can easily see whether that reply was from the original poster. With AC posts, the only hints you have are the content of the post, and those may be purposefully misleading.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:35AM (1 child)
I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Not being able to track who wrote what encourages ignoring trolls and low-effort comments, while being able to tell encourages flamewars, petty arguments across threads/stories, rivalries, and bad behavior. Conversations between two individuals are better done through more direct and personal media.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday February 04 2022, @08:33AM
Sure, otherwise you probably wouldn't post AC. But that is a very different statement than the claim that there are no positives at all.
I obviously think the positives generally outweigh the negatives. But that's a value judgement that anyone has to do for themselves.
Unlike some others I'm not against AC posting in general; I think it is an important option to have. My post was entirely to state a fact, namely that there are indeed advantages to posting pseudonymously.
OTOH, I do value the ability to not reveal my real identity. The only other place ever I've used this pseudonymous identity of mine was on Slashdot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by exaeta on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:02PM (18 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:57PM (15 children)
Would it really help? Given his clearly-demonstrated propensity for furious public masturbation, why wouldn't he be expected to simply TOR/VPN/re-host, create another identity and return to more furious public masturbation, now aided by his rampant combination of ego and self-pity?
At least when he whips it out for another axle-grease and manipulation session, we all know how microsoft it really is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by exaeta on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:04PM (9 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:17PM (8 children)
Wouldn't really fly.
As long as soylent allows for anonymous access, it's arguably authorised. As long as the ban is linked to a specific account rather than others, the use and/or creation of others is arguably authorised.
On this front, aristarchus (complete with his ridiculous puffery about ancient greek identity and philosophical omniscience) is his own worst enemy. Every time he shows his skidmarks he just ends up looking as crazy as Hazuki and as deluded as gewg_.
(Score: 3, Informative) by exaeta on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:38PM (7 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @07:20PM (5 children)
So he posts anonymously, like gewg_ a.k.a. OriginalOwner, (and just as insanely, if the track record holds true), and when the big, bad cops show up to turn him into a prison plaything, he tells the judge: "Was no block, I didn't hack anything, I didn't sign in. There wasn't a restraining order served, so they obviously meant to let me in anonymously."
There you are: no technical measures circumvented, so the DMCA isn't relevant. Authority to post is implicitly offered in the public, anonymous posting. I suppose a sufficiently partisan prosecutor and judge might railroad him, but I wouldn't bet on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:30PM (1 child)
People get prosecuted for less.. do you think judges understand technology?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:28AM
It isn't a lack of understanding, it is corruption. Many judges simply don't care what the law says and rule how they want, or for who they like better, or just who paid them under the table. Blaming technical ignorance is an excuse.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:59PM (2 children)
Easy. Just tell the judge he "hacked" his way in.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:28PM (1 child)
My my, how quickly the outrage turns towards fabrication of evidence to punish the political enemies! Fuck ari's doxxing and sock puppeting, but goddamn the emotionally immature sure are quick to go full fascists! Or did you forget your /just_a_joke_bro ? How many wrongs till we make the world right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday February 04 2022, @12:50AM
I thought the sarcasm was self-evident, but this sort of thing is often missed online. I'm not surprised you found outrage material there, if that was what you were specifically looking for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:33AM
Looks like exaeta has had yet another court case rejected with prejudice.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:32PM
Sometimes it's more about sending a message than whether the message is effective.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:48AM
Just a note on this topic - as a devoted TOR user and SN AC, please don't remove me from our community along with bad actors. I left The Other Site when AC was removed, after arriving there very early.
I value this community quite a bit (Azuma stans represent!) but would leave if it was read-only to me. I want to be able to ask questions and point out errors.
And to submit posts - always a tiny thrill to see that a submission has met criteria and gone main.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:44PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @10:13PM (1 child)
Except that the target hasn't apparently doxxed anybody, which is what brings us here.
Do you see the difference? The situations are not equivalent at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:52AM
Not from lack of trying! He is just not very bright, so not very good at it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:41PM (1 child)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:36AM
The simplest solution is often wrong. Not every post was rules-breaking let alone deserving of being purged. No, the mods did the right thing in being selective in their cleaning, even if it was more work for them. SN was built on respecting freedom of speech. Ari abused that and earned censure. Let it end there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:04PM (21 children)
Do you, the admins, know what does the victim wants? I ask the admins, as I don't think an anonymous coward's word should be trusted nor do I want the victim to have to sign their name to it. In any case, it seems like that is pertinent in any community decision. In fact, if this is a future problem I'd hope that there is no "default rule" but rather a community discussion like this one with information regarding the victim's feelings.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:22PM (2 children)
https://soylentnews.org/meta/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=47504&page=1&cid=1218246#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Admins can confirm that this AC is the target of ari's ire.
Forgot to mention that a significant financial contribution to SN might assuage some hurt feelzies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:52PM (1 child)
ari went about it the wrong way, but now that the cat's out of the bag and the editors defence of @we can't take action because of section 230" has been brown by their own actions, let the conversion begin. Or not. I've wasted enough time on this bs today. But it's always fun to watch a dumpster fire or a train wreck. So many of us just come for the hubris and the schadenfreude. Cuz we told you so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:00PM
"hate speech" (whatever that means this week): not against the rules
"lies": not against the rules
"right wing snowflakery": not against the rules
Creating legal liabilities: against the rules.
Yeah, doxxing creates legal liabilities, in a variety of ugly ways, depending on jurisdiction. So try looking for a true equivalence rather than a false one.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:25PM (15 children)
Why should Aristarchus get to decide his own punishment? Shouldn't the person he doxxed then get to decide, or at least that makes a lot more sense. If he doesn't want to then it should be up to someone else, not Aristarchus, such as the BoD or the community in general. But it's a bit odd that he would get to chose his own punishment.
While not related I have been banned from modding a few times. While not the same and this is not a gripe or anything. But I didn't get to pick and chose. I just got it and I took it. I think it was six months of modding suspension last time (it's the last time since I just turned off the modding now and I don't really plan on turning it back on anytime soon; clearly I can't be trusted with it for some reason) To many posts that from the same user that apparently turned into a modbomb or something, it was upvotes not downvotes.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:41PM (4 children)
Choice? The choice he has available is to accept his sentence or to ask for a worse one.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:03PM (3 children)
I guess the question is why should Aristarchus get to pick at all? It seems like something not having been offered to anyone else. Also three months is not a very long time. I guess depending on personal preference it could be an eternity but it could also be over in a flash.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday February 05 2022, @05:58PM (2 children)
He got a six-month ban. The choice he was offered is to make the ban permanent. Of course he could do this himself by leaving without anyone offering him a choice.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:48PM (1 child)
Says three in the article/story. Did they double down somehow or did Arist decide to give himself three extra months for bad behavior?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday February 06 2022, @03:52AM
I seem to have made a mistake and typed six when I meant three
-- hendrik
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:13PM (4 children)
A person claiming to be the target, posting as AC, has indicated a preference for an apology and that things go back the way they were before. That person is being exceptionally reasonable.
Giving Aristarchus the choice is an elegant solution to a tricky problem. SN is admin'd and moderated with a very light hand and is one of the few forums that still permits anonymous discourse. Offering that choice allows the admins to continue that extremely light touch philosophy and simultaneously removes any glee the offender would take from evading a nonconsensual permaban.
Clever.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:59PM (3 children)
If that is the case then I am fine with that, I don't really have any issue with it.
While I might not be friends, or foe, with Aristarchus, or agree with him of much of anything based on what he finds interesting in his submissions. I have no general desire, or getting filled with glee, to see him permanently banned. That said for what he apparently did something had or has to be done and I'm just less certain that he should get to pick which "punishment" should be handed out or which one he will accept. If anything three months seem light by all standards.
That said I'm less certain about the elegance of the matter, if it will work or not or the whole pick your own punishment aspect. As noted it might be a blunt tool either way as any user could in theory register multiple accounts and just swap around if one was so inclined. Stories can still be submitted, AC comments could be made. In that regard it's not much of a punishment. If one can really be handed out. I guess the punishment is that you are not allowed to have a named account. But the punishment might not be enforceable beyond that, I guess if one wanted to just register Ar1starchus or any multitude of similar names on a daily or hourly basis. While frowned upon unless you want to namecheck and ban that way it could be moot point.
With that in mind if they could stop him why can't they stop all the jew-shit-posting that seems to be happening with some frequency these days.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday February 04 2022, @01:21AM (2 children)
I'm neither friend nor foe with ari, but I would like to categorically state that imbecile behaviour like doxxing is not acceptable. Seriously dude, grow up, or get some professional counseling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:55AM (1 child)
No one seems to know anything about who was doxxed, or what was doxxed about them, so this is a very undoxxing! I suspect fowls playing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:50PM
The story makes it sound otherwise. At a minimum there seems to have been names, locations and employer.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @04:13AM (4 children)
Huh. How many upvotes equals a modbomb? Occasionally I find myself following someone around and upvoting 'em a bunch of times in a row, but it's because they kept saying interesting things, nothing personal about it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @07:26AM (1 child)
Mod Bombs
A 'mod bomb' is simply when a user, 'A', uses 5 or more of their moderation points to 'down mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. Would you want someone who has a vendetta to use all a bunch of their mod points on your comments? It works both ways -- don't use all a bunch of your mod points on a single user. When this is detected, all moderations making up the mod bomb are reversed and the mod points are not returned. We would like to make the code automatically prevent a mod bomb from occurring, but this is not yet in place. The focus is on the quality of the comments on the site, not on who posts them. Remember that there are other users on the site who have mod points. If you have used all that are permitted, do not fret as someone else will likely come along later.
Sock Bombs
Much like a 'mod bomb', a 'sock bomb' is when a user, 'A', use 4 or more of their moderation points to 'up mod' comments posted by a single user, 'B'. (The name is taken from the idea of a "sockpuppet" account.) Again, our intention is to update the code to automatically prevent this from happening. We realize that this can happen unintentionally when, say, a subject-matter expert provides supporting information in comments to a story. Excess 'up mods' beyond 4 per day are subject to being reversed. A repeated pattern of user 'A' upmodding user 'B' may be subject to further action. In short, please do not try to 'game' the system.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @05:00PM
Thanks. I know I've spent more than four points on a single user at once, but nothing seems to have come of it. Maybe they just revert, and since I don't go back to check, I wouldn't notice.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday February 04 2022, @12:22PM (1 child)
Right. That is the same. I don't think I pay that much attention to the name of the person but the content of the post. I think it's around four or five points given towards the same user. So if you don't pay attention it can sort of happen by accident. I think it's also an issue or remnant from when you only had 5 mod points in a day and to then blow all or nearly all on the same was somewhat harder I guess then compared to when you have 10 points. It become sort of twice as easy to hang yourself and it could or should happen more frequent.
That said you don't actually get any kind of explanation or notification it just goes into effect, one day it was fine and then next it just said you are banned from modding for 180 days. It had happened a few times before so it wasn't like it had never happened before to 180 days. But you don't even really know know why it happens as you don't really get told why and how. I don't even know if there is a review or if it's manual or if it's just automatic. It has passed now but I just turned it off. Clearly there are issues that I don't really feel like dealing with.
While this is offtopic and I don't really have a gripe about it or anything I just found it odd that Arist was offered three months of not logging in with his account but you can apparently get six months of not modding for just upvoting a few to many comments. Still it was just blocking from modding and not blocking from logging in it's not quite the same but the time was twice as long.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @05:23PM
Same here. Most of the time I notice the name after the mod is done. And with extremely rare exceptions (five now?) I only mod up. Unless it's truly egregious (and not just dumbass spew) I've got better uses for my mod points.
A few days back I was amused to note that I'd made 3 or 4 upmods in a row on someone who normally I vehemently disagree with (by now I don't even remember who) but on the topic of the moment, evidently had something salient to contribute.
I've never had a mod ban. Rather the reverse over on the Green Site, where I've occasionally had perpetual mod points (spend 'em all and immediately have more). First time that happened, it went on for about six months. Started somewhere around the same time as buckfeta.
Agreed on the relative punishment, but it might reflect a bigger problem with sock accounts than most of us are aware of.
Me, I just have the one account, always logged in and never post AC.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday February 04 2022, @05:13AM (1 child)
I respect that, but there's a downside. It's the reason crime victims don't get to pick the sentence. It also puts the target on the spot. It's the moderators who should take the heat for a ban, not the person who didn't sign up for moderation decisions.
It does sound like the staff here have carefully heard out what the target thinks, and I'm glad of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:56PM
Also, last I looked, there's the whole "community aervice" in lieu of jail or fines. So even criminals can in many cases choose their punishment.