This shit have got to stop. There was no doxxing but there was certainly harassment and stalking. (ProtectVoat)

submitted ago by sguevar

I can confirm that at one point in the past I saw @srayzie posting a link that redirected her post here at Voat to her twitter account. I can confirm that I saw those pictures in said twitter account.

The pictures were of public access and hence there was no doxx applied here. If I am going to defend u/Obrez of his unjust ban I must defend u/Trigglypuff of hers.

Sorry srayzie but I do not support the ban for Trigglypuff as she got a hold of said pictures from a source that was previously linked by yoursefl.

I do however want to make clear that the harassment and the stalking is deeply concerning and this shit has got to stop. This whole matter started because @Zyklon_b decided to stir things up on v/GA and he wanted to start a fire. He got it and because of this whole matter he got u/Trigglypuff burnt.

I do not defend their approach, heck I even called out ZB for fucking this up just because of his own druggy pride and going as far as now stalking srayzie and shizy is simply a cowardly thing to do from him and the ones that supported such attempt. I will however have to ask @Puttitout to unban u/Trigglypuff because she did not went out of her way to get pictures of srayzie that wouldn't have been accessible to her if srayzie hadn't posted links to her twitter on at least one post he did on GA.

I hate to be the devil's advocate here and right now I am fucking pissed at ZB for what he has caused. But the doxx wasn't there. The request of srayzie to remove her pictures was met by the admin but no ban should have ever taken place because they were of public domain.

Otherwise any twitter pics posted here at Voat can be considered as doxxing and you all know that is not the case.

I will stand by srayzie and shizy and defend them against the harassment that ZB has started but I will not condone the ban for an unjustified reason.

I hope you are happy with your actions ZB because you have proven to be nothing more than a coward junkie too immature to acknowledge your wrong doings and unable to apologize for what you've done. So to that I say, go fuck yourself faggot. I am extremely disappointed on you.

EDIT: I HAVE DECIDED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER PRIVATELY IN HOPE FOR A START OF A HEALING PROCESS ON VOAT. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT ANY ATTACK ON MY CHARACTER FROM USERS LIKE @VIRGE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN DIVERSIONS AND THAT I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN WHAT VOAT REPRESENTS. HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A CONCLUSION TO THIS SOON ENOUGH.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

sguevar ago

I appreciate your intake on this, and maybe we can find a common ground on this. But at this point the one that has power to put all of this to rest is @srayzie.

She has the power on whether this ends now or not. I hope she does use it wisely for I would see this ban as dangerous defeat to what Voat represents.

Regarding your question mark I make the same argument, any post done from twitter, screencap of personal accounts of other people including President Trump for that matter can be considered as doxxing under that logic.

I don't agree with it. If the pics were on public domain they do not infer a doxxing otherwise the posts that @antiliberalsociety has done on @TexasVet would also infer said behavior and their not because they users themselves linked them and are on the web. They are material that can't be use for profiteering we can agree on that but they can't be considered doxxing of any kind.

Vindicator ago

any post done from twitter, screencap of personal accounts of other people including President Trump for that matter can be considered as doxxing under that logic.

Not exactly @sguevar and @kevdude. The difference here is that srayzie asked that it be taken down. I believe under the DMCA, that mandates @PuttitOut remove it. Under that logic, since srayzie asked Triggly to remove the content and she refused, that then put Triggly in violation of the law Putt has to abide by. I could be wrong about that.

I believe there are additional circumstances at play, here, as well, if @Srayzie linked to that prior to the incident involving NeonRevolt several months ago where several different accounts were posting messages all over various social media asking for help doxing her. They also threatened to rape her in front of her kids.

I am pretty sure the DMCA considers the creator of the images to retain copyright and recognizes their legal right to request sites remove their images, text, music and any other content they created...whether they posted it or not.

Perhaps @cynabuns knows more about how DMCA requirements might apply, here.

WhiteRonin ago

This is actually a Twitter issue since they have bing and google access and srayzie pops as the number 1 hit!

She didn’t DMCA twitter, google or bing did she?

Vindicator ago

I don't know. All I'm saying is, asking for her copyrighted material to be removed probably activated the DMCA.

antiliberalsociety ago

You first must obtain said copyright. From what I understand, links to 3rd party accounts were posted, that she herself controls. If it was creating such a problem, she could easily remove the content herself. Voat never hosted said content.

Vindicator ago

Voat never hosted said content.

Yes, Voat did. They put the pictures of her as the banner of subverse, using CSS.

You first must obtain said copyright.

Wrong. Copyright exists from the moment original content is created, and is wholly owned by it's creator unless the person gave up the rights to their creation through a pre-existing contract (i.e. a ghostwriter). It's not like a patent or trademark.

RockmanRaiden ago

Thanks for your methodical explanation of things.

Vindicator ago

What would be the fair use argument in this case?

antiliberalsociety ago

Voluntarily uploaded to the internet without intent to make a profit, no profit was gained in its use on Voat