Chief Twit

[wheelnut]

Though I cannot resists pointing out the rather obvious issue with doxing.

It's all very well to say "that information is out there" but even the most hardened nutjob is going to get bored scanning flight data to see if the current media villain is in their town.

Contrast that with the same ne'er do well hanging out on Twitter with their BLM/Antifa/<name your poison> chums on Twitter all day every day.

"Dang. That fucker is comin' to my town! Let's get the boys together and show him he's not welcome".

"Whoa, that little gurl of his sure is purdy..."

Is the logic of doxing vs. availability of information really that unintuitive? Surely the difference should be blindingly obvious?

I’m not sure that’s the issue. The issue is that the new owner of Twitter has vilified what he views as the restriction of free speech. Yet as soon as that free speech starts to become an inconvenience to him ….

[Screwdriver]

As long as you’re willing to quote your sources. And as long as your sources don’t involve YouTube.

I reject the implication you have any authority to speak for the forum.

However, as it happens, I typically do quote sources for scientific or data derived commentary.

I'll be damned if I'm going to justify my opinion on any matter by having to refer to any or all of the evidence I may have seen. I dunno if there's been a thread on Amber Heard but that would be a perfect example where the thread, if not my post would have to be as long as the trial itself (which was excellent entertainment by the way).

Interestingly, that too is bang on topic in a thread about that sly devil Elon...

[Screwdriver]

I’m not sure that’s the issue. The issue is that the new owner of Twitter has vilified what he views as the restriction of free speech. Yet as soon as that free speech starts to become an inconvenience to him ….

There is of course some irony to it but doxing is a thing all of it's own and as it happens, specifically banned in the Twitter t&c.

I guess the mainstream media won't be quite so vociferous in pointing out that little factlet. Plus it seems that the obvious difference between being able to find information about a persons location compared to telling everybody where they are in real time updates on social media is perhaps not as obvious to some...

[wheelnut]

I reject the implication you have any authority to speak for the forum.

However, as it happens, I typically do quote sources for scientific or data derived commentary.

I'll be damned if I'm going to justify my opinion on any matter by having to refer to any or all of the evidence I may have seen. I dunno if there's been a thread on Amber Heard but that would be a perfect example where the thread, if not my post would have to be as long as the trial itself (which was excellent entertainment by the way).

Interestingly, that too is bang on topic in a thread about that sly devil Elon...

I’m not speaking for the forum, I’m speaking for myself. If you want me to to take anything you say seriously then provide your evidence and workings, otherwise I’ll happily apply Hitchin’s Razor and assume that anything that is asserted without without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you choose not then that’s fine as well.

[Horse]

that poster

No chocolates, no flowers. It's not even the morning after after, but he can't remember my name

I will have probably dug a lot deeper, for a lot longer than most and not just parrot out the low hanging fruit being punted out by mainstream media.

Indeed. You will have, and I respect that.

But it doesn't mean you (or Musk, or Twitter) are perfect. You called me out on Twitter banning journalists because of 'doxxing' his daughter. If that's the case, show us. I've already said I'll agree it was the correct thing to do.

[wheelnut]

I’m not sure that’s the issue. The issue is that the new owner of Twitter has vilified what he views as the restriction of free speech. Yet as soon as that free speech starts to become an inconvenience to him ….

There is of course some irony to it but doxing is a thing all of it's own and as it happens, specifically banned in the Twitter t&c.

I guess the mainstream media won't be quite so vociferous in pointing out that little factlet. Plus it seems that the obvious difference between being able to find information about a persons location compared to telling everybody where they are in real time updates on social media is perhaps not as obvious to some...

Like I say, now it’s become an inconvenience to him. It his ball now though ….

[Screwdriver]

I’m not speaking for the forum, I’m speaking for myself. If you want me to to take anything you say seriously then provide your evidence and workings, otherwise I’ll happily apply Hitchin’s Razor and assume that anything that is asserted without without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you choose not then that’s fine as well.

I don't mind one way or the other. Take it or leave it, no harm no foul etc.

Your comment is valid of course but with something like the Twitter files, the situation is vast and I apply (pseudo) scientific principles to these "he said, she said" morality conundrums by accepting the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to form an opinion. The Johhny Depp vs. Amber Heard conundrum would be a perfect (and somewhat apt!) example where my opinion has formed after ingesting a vast amount of data I could not possibly share. (she is a gold digging lying whore by the way )

I only object when I am subject to unfair criticism or mindless insults. Whether you consider my opinions or not or even can be bothered to read them, it's all the same to me. I get my kicks from having to examine my own position by comparing it to others. Perhaps incredibly, the most interesting part for me is if I discover that I am wrong (typically in a science topic) which means I get to reexamine my own prejudices and/or learn something I didn't know or understand. I appreciate that may be hard to believe...

@Mr. Dazzle calm down mate, yes I do remember...

[Screwdriver]

Like I say, now it’s become an inconvenience to him. It his ball now though ….

Doxing is a tad more than "inconvenient". It is downright dangerous and literally illegal under hate crime laws (although how those laws are applied is entirely subjective in todays monocultural, partisan environment). I wonder how it might have affected VisorDown in its heyday or even TRC if those obvious trolls had their names and addresses outed during some of the more robust err, conversations from those heady days.

PS I say again, it is also expressly forbidden under the Twitter terms and conditions. Always has been, not a Musk specific clause. Same is true for most (if not all??) social media sites.

[ZRX61]

Sixth installment of the Twitter Files just dropped & show the FBI was colluding with Twitter to censor free speech. Roth is in this up to his ass.

The only thing about Musk on the media today is his suspending accounts of various people. Not ONE word about the files (except on Fox)

[Hoonercat]

I make no secret of the fact that I have selected those parts of this chaps thoughts that I strongly disagree with.

On the other hand, you appear to be comfortable with a gay activist in a position of authority in the field of safety, encouraging young people (lets say) into Grindr. His life's mission one would suspect, even writing a PhD on the subject...

But I take your point. I have looked at the headlines only so my knee jerk reaction may be akin to say, objecting to free needles or free drugs for addicts. On the face of it a ridiculously bad idea, in reality (we are told) actually has a positive effect. Too complex for a layman like me so I can only react to my gut feeling. There needs to be some level of trust.

My gut feeling tells me that the sub-selection of quotes and précis of the oeuvre of his work "protecting" children and "young adults" should at least ring alarm bells. Depends which way you look at it, looks to me like a fox among the chickens.

Is he a gay activist, or just a gay man with opinions? I don't enough about him to say for sure, but you're the only person I've seen refer to him as an activist. But just to be clear, I'm comfortable with anyone who advocates a safer online environment for minors, regardless of their sexuality. That being said, whether I agree or disagree with him is irrelevant, my reply was purely intended to show that you were misrepresenting what he had said in his thesis, which you hadn't even read it.
As for doxxing, completely agree. I find it astonishing that high profile figures can be tracked in real time using publicly available data, given the security implications.

[Hoonercat]

Like I say, now it’s become an inconvenience to him. It his ball now though ….

Doxing is a tad more than "inconvenient". It is downright dangerous and literally illegal under hate crime laws (although how those laws are applied is entirely subjective in todays monocultural, partisan environment). I wonder how it might have affected VisorDown in its heyday or even TRC if those obvious trolls had their names and addresses outed during some of the more robust err, conversations from those heady days.

PS I say again, it is also expressly forbidden under the Twitter terms and conditions. Always has been, not a Musk specific clause. Same is true for most (if not all??) social media sites.

My understanding is that the rules were only changed last Wednesday? Prior to that change, there were hundreds of similar accounts on Twitter tracking high profile people which were subsequently banned/suspended.

IN A CHANGE to its anti-doxxing policy made Wednesday, Twitter barred users from sharing a person’s “live” location, a broad, vague, and immediately confusing prohibition. The policy was amended on the same day Twitter banned @ElonJet, an account that tracked owner Elon Musk’s personal private jet, along with the account of its creator, college sophomore Jack Sweeney...
The new rule, which an Internet Archive snapshot of the page shows was not present the day before Sweeney and @ElonJet were banned...

As of this morning, the suspended journo accounts are being reactivated after Musk ran a poll asking if they should serve the full suspension or be reactivated immediately.

[Hoonercat]

Edited down so the post didn't take an entire page.

That is quite obviously a lie. You edited it to suit your narrative. My actual point is still there for all to see.

I refer to the oeuvre of this persons work, especially the Twitter files which demonstrate to me he is clearly obsessed with sex and dragging people into Grindr. The younger the better. Yes I did skim read his PhD which reads like an advert for Grindr. My opinion of him has not changed.

But back to the more damaging Twitter files.



Perhaps you can edit that to have some alternate meaning. Maybe you'll come up with a clever spin, an excuse for why this chap seems so interested in youngsters.

We can either agree to disagree or you can ask me to put you on ignore. I am not arguing with anyone so keen on defending obsessive sex pests. Up until a few minutes ago I thought an otter was an aquatic mammal Not to this sick pervert. Go find the rest of his crap yourself, I'm done with this.

I dare not discuss anything further on this particular topic anyway since it will inevitably end up with this thread being locked.

You keep telling us how much research you do, but yet again show that to be false. If you'd bothered to actually follow the link that Roth posted, you'd have come across the news story and seen that the question wasn't his, it was a direct quote from the article. The story concerned a teacher who was charged because he had consensual sex with an 18 year old student, despite the age of consent in that state being 16 at the time.
So no, his tweet had nothing to do with 'youngsters', he himself was only 22/23 at the time, posing a quoted question regarding an 18 year old student in a state where the age of consent was 16

From the article:

Matthew Hirschfelder, a former choir teacher at Hoquiam High School in Washington state, had sex in his office with a student days before she graduated. Then 33, he was charged with first degree sexual misconduct with a minor, even though the student was 18 at the time. I mentioned this case yesterday in a link roundup, but the issues it raises -- especially, whether a high school student can ever meaningfully consent to sex with a teacher -- deserves a bit more consideration

[Horse]

Doxing is... downright dangerous and literally illegal under hate crime laws

the suspended journo accounts are being reactivated after Musk ran a poll asking if they should serve the full suspension or be reactivated immediately.

So 'against hate laws' can be literally overridden by the outcome of a Musk poll?

[Screwdriver]

I did follow the link I posted but suggesting the article itself is "harmless" is a non sequitur. It should be immediately obvious to anyone the answer to the question "Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?" is NO!

The question is in fact in his own words, posted in his own Twitter account by him. It is not as you suggest a "direct quote" from elsewhere, he changes the meaning from this specific case to the wider general case. You might be happy that a teacher has had sexual relations with a student, Roth rephrased the question to ask if it's ok for all students to have sex with their teachers.

OBVIOUSLY NOT!

Schools should be a place of safety for children. Not somewhere they can be poached by sex obsessed adults and fed into Grindr.

The very fact that Roth is again questioning the morality of preying upon children is in itself another red flag as to his suitability for being responsible for their safety. It's a no from me.

[Hoonercat]

I did follow the link I posted but suggesting the article itself is "harmless" is a non sequitur. It should be immediately obvious to anyone the answer to the question "Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?" is NO!

The question is in fact in his own words, posted in his own Twitter account by him. It is not as you suggest a "direct quote" from elsewhere, he changes the meaning from this specific case to the wider general case. You might be happy that a teacher has had sexual relations with a student, Roth rephrased the question to ask if it's ok for all students to have sex with their teachers.

No, he doesn't. When the article posed the question 'especially, whether a high school student can ever meaningfully consent to sex with a teacher' it wasn't referring to that specific student, it was referring to students in general. The court had already decided in that specific case, the answer was no.

[Screwdriver]

This has turned into a semantic issue. Your implicit suggestion was that the Twitter post made by Roth was not his but a "direct quote". It was his post, in his own words but as I say, that is not my concern here. My concern is that a safety officer is questioning the morality of banging students.

It is also important to remember that "the age of consent" is a limit, not a fucking target!

[Mussels]

This has turned into a semantic issue. Your implicit suggestion was that the Twitter post made by Roth was not his but a "direct quote". It was his post, in his own words but as I say, that is not my concern here. My concern is that a safety officer is questioning the morality of banging students.

It is also important to remember that "the age of consent" is a limit, not a fucking target!

Are you are suggesting this topic is one that should never be debated?

[Screwdriver]

Are you are suggesting this topic is over that should never be debated?

No but I am uncomfortable with the level of detail I am expected to provide simply to justify my opinion. I have had to read a couple of articles which frankly disgust me just to prove somebody actually said what they said. Plus the usual "you mean this" when I actually say that.

It's all a bit too ming mong, ping pong so I do not feel the need to comment any further on the case. Now I am merely reacting to misrepresentations and criticisms of what I have previously said or not said.

[mangocrazy]

Are you are suggesting this topic is over that should never be debated?

No but I am uncomfortable with the level of detail I am expected to provide simply to justify my opinion. I have had to read a couple of articles which frankly disgust me just to prove somebody actually said what they said. Plus the usual "you mean this" when I actually say that.

It's all a bit too ming mong, ping pong so I do not feel the need to comment any further on the case. Now I am merely reacting to misrepresentations and criticisms of what I have previously said or not said.

If you make assertions without proof, expect to be asked for proof. You do the same for those with views contrary to yours, why should you be exempt?

[Hoonercat]

The article that he linked to discusses how the court ruling essentially made it illegal for a high school teacher to have a sexual relationship with a 20 year old high school student, but perfectly acceptable in a college. Therefore, it's a valid question. Asking the question doesn't in any way imply whether he agrees or disagrees, it's simply a question for debate linked to an article which discusses relationships between students above the age of consent and up to the age of 21 and teachers. As already said, Roth was 22/23 at the time. And your take on that is:

Maybe you'll come up with a clever spin, an excuse for why this chap seems so interested in youngsters.

Strangely, I don't recall any outcry when the (female) journo originally asked the question