It says a lot that you had to ban me from announcements to prevent my calling out your blatant lies

[kestrel9]

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Actually I did think about it but didn't care as I never have expectations of private conversations when it comes to the internet.

[antiliberalsociety]

> paranoid

[img]https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg[/img Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.

Oh, make no mistake I had no doubt you snoop through everyone's shit - but we just had a problem with Arete and the admin betraying the userbase's trust via data privacy breaching. ConPro at least has a disclaimer before you send a PM that it isn't private. This is some shady shit you're up to, you act like it's a functionality problem when you're the one that went looking. So, here we are, ONCE AGAIN YOU BETRAYED YOUR USERBASE and you have the balls to call me paranoid, and all kinds of other ad hominems to deflect from your fuckery.

[antiliberalsociety]

You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

Why don't you enforce your own rule? Now that's a pretty simple question. Go back to reading people's private messages.

Sounds like you're talking about the second one then. Why be so obtuse?

As I said to @MadWorld in chat earlier, yes to be consistent I should probably block the link to the tloloc. Or allow doxing outright.

The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

2. Allow "self-doxing" without limitation, but ban non-self-doxing, i.e. the common rule elsewhere. Then it depends on your definition of "self dox". If someone's revealed the info by mistake, you seem to think that's a self-dox and fair game. In which case, why ban doxxing at all? Let people be responsible for their own opsec.

3. Ban doxxing here, but allow links to doxes elsewhere e.g. the tloloc link, links to SV archive, catbox etc. I'm inclined to think it's different whether the info is displayed here explicitly (e.g. as text or embedded image) or you have to follow the link to find it (e.g. tloloc, SV archive). But in reality a link here that says "follow this link for dox on [username]..." might as well be explicit.

4. Ban doxxing here and links to doxes elsewhere. Very hard to police (I can imagine a link to a google search which shows someone's dox at the bottom of the page, or on page 2). Would ban some links to SV archive (which, by the way, I see as separate from SVF and obviously not subject to the same rules) and other sites. It comes down to what "hosting information" means. We know SVF would be in trouble for "hosting CP" even if it was just a link to a catbox image.

That's where I am currently. If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am. But if it helps you feel good about yourself to carry on like that then go for it.

I just cut through your bullshit. You're full of shit by calling it a dox because it's based off of his own submissions. This you putting wheels on the goalposts. I posted all your own words specifying that it's a violation to link to any personal information regarding a user's real identity and you're dancing with the stars trying to avoid answering for it. Now you're onto arguing semantics. This isn't helping your case playing games. You're proving me right with every dodge, every troll bot (flair), every ban, and every ad hominem you muster up.

Face it. You were wrong to move the goalposts and that's why you're playing hot potato trying to answer for it. Why is it though, before April this drama was non existent on here?

[MadWorld]

> paranoid

[img]https://files.catbox.moe/e57iir.jpg[/img Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.

Oh, make no mistake I had no doubt you snoop through everyone's shit - but we just had a problem with Arete and the admin betraying the userbase's trust via data privacy breaching. ConPro at least has a disclaimer before you send a PM that it isn't private. This is some shady shit you're up to, you act like it's a functionality problem when you're the one that went looking. So, here we are, ONCE AGAIN YOU BETRAYED YOUR USERBASE and you have the balls to call me paranoid, and all kinds of other ad hominems to deflect from your fuckery.

I kind of expect that shit to happen. But had not come to mind on SVF before this drama. An E2EE would be nice, but that is not the root of problem(s). The main problem lies in the integrity of a site's admin. Voat.co never had this problem, as far as I could tell, and it did not have any encryption for PM. I never heard of Putt snooping at PMs because he could. For what it was worth, Putt got a lot of shit thrown at him, just for looking up downvoaters in his submission. When SV said E2EE would remove his temptation to read user's PMs, what would stop him from looking up other private details because of his temptation? What could go wrong with a self-declared dictator, if you will, driven by temptation, to do things because he can and not because they are right or wrong or violating a certain principle? A site's admin can operate in god mode at will. There is no amount of encryption that can fix privacy issue with an admin who wants to look up user's private details.

Principles!! What a funny word. SV spoke of upholding his personal principles. He would not bend to violate his own principles. I just hope that looking up PMs, because he can, is not one of them, and that it was a bad joke gone wrong.

[antiliberalsociety]

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.

Oh, make no mistake I had no doubt you snoop through everyone's shit - but we just had a problem with Arete and the admin betraying the userbase's trust via data privacy breaching. ConPro at least has a disclaimer before you send a PM that it isn't private. This is some shady shit you're up to, you act like it's a functionality problem when you're the one that went looking. So, here we are, ONCE AGAIN YOU BETRAYED YOUR USERBASE and you have the balls to call me paranoid, and all kinds of other ad hominems to deflect from your fuckery.

I kind of expect that shit to happen. But had not come to mind on SVF before this drama. An E2EE would be nice, but that is not the root of problem(s). The main problem lies in the integrity of a site's admin. Voat.co never had this problem, as far as I could tell, and it did not have any encryption for PM. I never heard of Putt snooping at PMs because he could. For what it was worth, Putt got a lot of shit thrown at him, just for looking up downvoaters in his submission. When SV said E2EE would remove his temptation to read user's PMs, what would stop him from looking up other private details because of his temptation? What could go wrong with a self-declared dictator, if you will, driven by temptation, to do things because he can and not because they are right or wrong or violating a certain principle? A site's admin can operate in god mode at will. There is no amount of encryption that can fix privacy issue with an admin who wants to look up user's private details.

Principles!! What a funny word. SV spoke of upholding his personal principles. He would not bend to violate his own principles. I just hope that looking up PMs, because he can, is not one of them, and that it was a bad joke gone wrong.

Oh hold on now, principles is what he says stops him from "giving me the flick" altogether! So he's got some! (coughs-notfromAnnouncementstho-coughs)

Edit: You're going to have to stick to one point at a time, it's too boring to respond to!

[chrimony]

The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy. But it doesn't really matter -- you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am.

Dude, you went from defending pedo (((blumen))) out of principle (which I actually have no problem with, as I do believe in principles) to banning blumen for posting a harmless video of a child with a horse, as I understand it, after you lose one of the few remaining members. Then you ban ALS from Announcements (something AOU did to me when I criticized his shitty policies), to attaching "flair" to ALS's chat (AOU infamous for attaching "flair" to users), to READING PERSONAL MESSAGES.

At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

[SearchVoat]

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy.

Yeah I'm leaning that way as well.

At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

Yes I agree 100% about admins being the weak point.

Through all of this I have been trying to address that weakness, by struggling to develop rules relatively free from the personal bias of the individual, and by revealing everything about my throught processes as I operate here. Disclosing that I have viewed PMs (have been entirely uninterested in them until the drama of the last couple of weeks, by the way - but the fact remains that they are not "private" to an admin) was a choice based on that principle of openness. But I fully understand that many people will see disclosing that breach of trust as worse than doing it secretly, which I'm sure is common on sites like this.

(btw the site is not dead - just resting)

[antiliberalsociety]

The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy. But it doesn't really matter -- you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point.

If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am.

Dude, you went from defending pedo (((blumen))) out of principle (which I actually have no problem with, as I do believe in principles) to banning blumen for posting a harmless video of a child with a horse, as I understand it, after you lose one of the few remaining members. Then you ban ALS from Announcements (something AOU did to me when I criticized his shitty policies), to attaching "flair" to ALS's chat (AOU infamous for attaching "flair" to users), to READING PERSONAL MESSAGES.

At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

From your comment on talk.loli:

[ - ] chrimony 5 points 1 day ago (+5/-0)

" He only sticks around to drive remaining users away & taunt you until you ban him from the site completely so he can cry about it."


"remaining users" is right. What you don't mention is that CognitiveDissident5, one of the few hardcore members of the forum, deleted their account after you were protected from being "doxxed" when you self-doxxed yourself on another site. The SearchVoat admin threatened to ban anybody that exposed (((you))).

After essentially collapsing the forum to protect you, in a hail mary the admin suddenly sees the light and you get the ban. Now the only content left is the usual ALS drum beat. You and ALS are two sides of the same coin. Both forum destroyers.

Why do you equate me to that pedophile? I'm not the one destroying the boards, I'm the one pointing out the shit that will lead to its demise. You're blaming the messenger.

[antiliberalsociety]

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

I'm already on record of supporting this. It actually aligns with the 1st Amendment, and it's the simplest policy.

Yeah I'm leaning that way as well.

At this point, I'm only here for the drama. The forum itself is dead, and its been obvious to me for some time that admins are always the weak points in "free speech" sites. Only decentralized forums where users decide what they see can be a true free speech forum.

Yes I agree 100% about admins being the weak point.

Through all of this I have been trying to address that weakness, by struggling to develop rules relatively free from the personal bias of the individual, and by revealing everything about my throught processes as I operate here. Disclosing that I have viewed PMs (have been entirely uninterested in them until the drama of the last couple of weeks, by the way - but the fact remains that they are not "private" to an admin) was a choice based on that principle of openness. But I fully understand that many people will see disclosing that breach of trust as worse than doing it secretly, which I'm sure is common on sites like this.

(btw the site is not dead - just resting)

Oy vey! I'm such a victim!

> Benevolent dictator

[chrimony]

Why do you equate me to that pedophile? I'm not the one destroying the boards, I'm the one pointing out the shit that will lead to its demise. You're blaming the messenger.

Because you take your crusading to extreme levels. blumen is willing to tear down a forum by prancing on the line of banning, and you're willing to go to war against admins and users if they aren't willing to ban guys like blumen. You've made enemies of even people who used to be your allies.