I've seen you post a lot on folkishasatru, so I don't really think you're a shill (pineal gland article aside). But here's his case against you as I see it. Apparently the odd pattern he was seeing was users posting links to domains shortly after those domains were created. What's more, the domains he lists appears to be short-lived, with many of them 404ed by now.
You reposted this article, linking to a domain that was very new. However, this was 9 days after someone posted 9 days earlier in worldnews, so it seems likely you saw the article on Voat and then put it into a sub you thought it belonged in. https://voat.co/v/BloodOfEurope/2919609
You posted a link to a domain that had been registered just 12 hours before your post and it was apparently the first time it had been posted to voat. https://voat.co/v/BloodOfEurope/2913709
To me, the ludinfo24.com post doesn't seem like very good evidence since someone already posted it to voat, and you likely got it from them. If we throw that out, then there really aren't 2 questionable posts like @madworld says, just the one.
Do you remember how you found the scandallinfo.com "my hometown is gone" article? Might shed some light on what's happening.
Being a suspect doesn't mean that you are guilty of anything, it just means that we are to be more careful when dealing with you or when checking what you post.
its close to the sentiment of some. i'm fucking pissed off about people claiming shit about me that aint true
On our previous interaction I helped you prove that you had no knowledge of the suspicious nature of your post. You still have issues understanding it
The fact that you didn't have the intention doesn't mean that you didn't use the suspicious site.
It just means that you were collateral damage of other desinforming on this community. But it does show that you have gain knowledge about the future posts of the source you used.
Let me use a comparison, please, by all means don't overreact and think objectively:
You are driving a car, and suddenly you look at your phone and did not notice that a person was jaywalking and crossing the street. You run over the person and the person dies.
The person is guilty of jaywalking and endangering himself/herself and others by his/her reckless behaviour.
You didn't have the intention to run him/her over, but you still did and you killed him because you looked at your phone. You are just guilty of committing involuntary manslaughter. You didn't have the intention to kill that person, but because of your negligence you ended up killing the jaywalker.
Now you could argue it was an accident, which in fact we all can agree it was, but you still run that person over. Hence you are guilty of killing that person.
Let's translate this to your current situation:
You driving the car is you posting what you posted.
The jaywalker is the post that you used to do yours.
You looking at your phone is your negligent behavior of not making sure whether the link was suspicious or not.
You not having the intention to not kill the jaywalker is the same as you not having the intention to potentially harm Voat.
It still happened!
So you are guilty of using a suspicious link, without knowing so,but you didn't research about it. However we now know you didn't have the intention of potentially harming Voat.
And because of that we would hope you would stop using suspicious sites in the future.
view the rest of the comments →
Its_over_9000 ago
I've seen you post a lot on folkishasatru, so I don't really think you're a shill (pineal gland article aside). But here's his case against you as I see it. Apparently the odd pattern he was seeing was users posting links to domains shortly after those domains were created. What's more, the domains he lists appears to be short-lived, with many of them 404ed by now.
To me, the ludinfo24.com post doesn't seem like very good evidence since someone already posted it to voat, and you likely got it from them. If we throw that out, then there really aren't 2 questionable posts like @madworld says, just the one.
Do you remember how you found the scandallinfo.com "my hometown is gone" article? Might shed some light on what's happening.
theoldones ago
it was in the new queue. think carefully before accusing me of having some knowledge of anything from where it came from
Its_over_9000 ago
did it seem like i was going to accuse you of that?
theoldones ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3005178/16467450
its close to the sentiment of some. i'm fucking pissed off about people claiming shit about me that aint true
sguevar ago
@theoldones
On our previous interaction I helped you prove that you had no knowledge of the suspicious nature of your post. You still have issues understanding it
The fact that you didn't have the intention doesn't mean that you didn't use the suspicious site.
It just means that you were collateral damage of other desinforming on this community. But it does show that you have gain knowledge about the future posts of the source you used.
Let me use a comparison, please, by all means don't overreact and think objectively:
You are driving a car, and suddenly you look at your phone and did not notice that a person was jaywalking and crossing the street. You run over the person and the person dies.
The person is guilty of jaywalking and endangering himself/herself and others by his/her reckless behaviour.
You didn't have the intention to run him/her over, but you still did and you killed him because you looked at your phone. You are just guilty of committing involuntary manslaughter. You didn't have the intention to kill that person, but because of your negligence you ended up killing the jaywalker.
Now you could argue it was an accident, which in fact we all can agree it was, but you still run that person over. Hence you are guilty of killing that person.
Let's translate this to your current situation:
You driving the car is you posting what you posted. The jaywalker is the post that you used to do yours. You looking at your phone is your negligent behavior of not making sure whether the link was suspicious or not. You not having the intention to not kill the jaywalker is the same as you not having the intention to potentially harm Voat.
It still happened!
So you are guilty of using a suspicious link, without knowing so,but you didn't research about it. However we now know you didn't have the intention of potentially harming Voat.
And because of that we would hope you would stop using suspicious sites in the future.