Youtube Star dead, circumstances unknown (Accused Dan Schneider of pedophilia in 2014) (pizzagate)

submitted ago by NOMOCHOMO

Dillon the Hacker is a YouTuber. He's now apparently dead.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dillon-the-hacker-dead/

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

He's the first person who ever accused Dan Schneider of being a pedo on Video (2014)

https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZE

In what appears to be a fictional rant, Dillon repeatedly references Dan's Jewish Heritage. Claims he dated Ariana Grande before she was famous and personally heard stories of sex slavery and ritualized abuse of nickelodeon stars.

Archive this Video, YouTube could purge his account: https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZE

I still haven't made up my mind on this whole spectacle. Whether Dillon is dead or alive, his "death" can be used to bring more attention to Dan Schneider's pedo proclivity

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

EricKaliberhall ago

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Possible Disinformation flair is activated.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Nothing in my post is possible disinfo.

My post covers both possibilities (hoax/real), so nobody can accuse me of later spreading a false narrative

I am reposting MSM news stories that mention online speculation about his death being a hoax

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/tragedy-mystery-over-dillon-hackers-19036892

The official narrative is no details have emerged regarding his death. Thus, it is a developing story.

@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed is this "possible disinfo" flair warranted?

Multiple MSM sites say it may be a hoax. The accusations of it being a "troll/hoax" are a necessary to fully encompass the story.

Flairing the post as "possible disinfo" (when I dont commit to either narrative) actually keeps people from reading it and considering if it is disinfo or not.

think- ago

Then you should have chosen another headline. Your headline says 'Youtube Star dead'. And yes, headlines need to be accurate, or they will get flaired.

NOMOCHOMO ago

all msm is reporting him dead.

If I were to post a different headline, people would claim I'm spreading disinfo by claiming it's a hoax.

Crensch ago

Youtube Star dead

The above is a factual claim.

Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.

It very obviously isn't common knowledge if:

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Therefore, I'm flagging this per rule 2. @EricKaliberhall @think- @Vindicator

NOMOCHOMO ago

So if a story is developing, it cannot be reported on here until it is empirical/common knowledge?

I provide a source because it isn't common knowledge...yet my own doubt of the truthfulness of the MSM story invalidates it as empirical evidence?

wtf are you even saying?

Crensch ago

So if a story is developing, it cannot be reported on here until it is empirical/common knowledge?

Sounds like you're having trouble understanding the rules.

I provide a source https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dillon-the-hacker-dead/ because it isn't common knowledge...

You provide that source but admit yourself that nobody knows exactly what happened. Meaning your source didn't say that. Meaning you just posted a link that didn't verify your claim.

yet my own doubt of the truthfulness of the MSM story invalidates it as empirical evidence per pizzagate rules?

You made the claim.

You make the claim, you support it.

"Youtube Star dead"

Except we all know you can't support it, because by your own admission, nobody knows what happened.

wtf are you even saying?

Why is such a simple thing so difficult for you to grasp?

NOMOCHOMO ago

(((You provide that source but admit yourself that nobody knows exactly what happened. Meaning your source didn't say that. Meaning you just posted a link that didn't verify your claim.)))

My own doubt doesn't invalidate the claim the article is making.

The article I linked is titled:

"Dillon the Hacker Dead"

That article uses the statements of other Youtubers who had relationships with Dillon to verify the claims including PewdiePie & BGKumbi

They got multiple confirmations which together become the empirical basis for the article.

Crensch ago

My own doubt doesn't invalidate the claim the article is making.

You made the post. You submitted the text. The claim is yours to defend.

The article I linked is titled:

"Dillon the Hacker Dead"

So?

Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean you're not responsible for supporting it.

That article uses the statements of other Youtubers who had relationships with Dillon to verify the claims including PewdiePie & BGKumbi

So... lots of anecdotal evidence. Do you know why anecdotes aren't accepted as evidence for most things?

They got multiple confirmations which together become the empirical basis for the article.

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

Empirical, but unconfirmed.

Edit: Speculation of death/hoax is in my original link. Why are Mods trying to remove this post?

You're really quite stupid, aren't you?

Re-post without stating as a fact that he's dead when you cannot confirm it with anyone but "people who are close to him" if you cannot confirm it.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.

v.s.

Empirical, but unconfirmed

where is "confirmed" or "unconfirmed" in the official submission rules?

@shewhomustbeobeyed @vindicator

Crensch ago

EACH factual claim

Youtube Star dead

So any link referencing the subject but not confirming the claim is acceptable, even when the user admits that the claims is unconfirmed?

NOMOCHOMO ago

the link confirms the claim with the statements of 3 individuals who were involved with the "deceased"

my own caution has no bearing on the empirical claims

Crensch ago

the link confirms the claim with the statements of 3 individuals who were involved with the "deceased"

That's not your claim. Your claim was not "3 individuals claim youtuber is deceased" it is "Youtube star dead".

Your backpedaling has no bearing on your burden of proof.

NOMOCHOMO ago

My title is "YouTube Star Dead, circumstances unknown..."

My title is based directly on the vast majority of Mainstream Media Articles which themeselves claim "Dillon the Hacker is Dead"

Not only did I qualify my title with "circumstances unknown" I urged caution in the first line of my post.

Dillon the Hacker is a YouTuber. He's now apparently dead....But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll.

W/in the reporting, the confusion is addressed, but finalizes with the conclusion that the death is real. Hence the Editorial Staff approving the title.

You're shifting the standard of proof from "empirical" to "confirmed". Such a standard is NOT FOUND in submission guidelines.

you still have not clarified as to what "confirmation" would reverse your flair. Death Cert?

@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed

Crensch ago

Let me give you an example:

"HILLARY CLINTON IS IN JAIL"

People close to Hillary made this statement; here's a link.

Nobody knows what happened.

That's what you're saying should be allowed here.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Let me give you an example:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3400486

Suprise one of Epstein's cameras was not working.

according to This story (http://archive.fo/TQ9Oi) one the cameras on Epstein's was not working.

Relevancy is a probable cover-up of a murder of an elite pedophile or white hats putting him in witness protection so he can offer testimony on other elite pedophiles.

switch Hillary Clinton w/ Epstein....These posts are allowed already...

"sources who were briefed earlier this month"

vs

4 youtubers who have documented online history w/ dillon.

@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed

Crensch ago

Hmm, and nobody reported it or mentioned that OP literally lied in the title.

@Vindicator I'll let you figure out where you want to draw this line. I think NOMOshade is trying to cause problems, but you've got point here.

Vindicator ago

Thanks Crensch. Only just saw this ping.

Generally speaking, when facts are in dispute or something might be disinfo, we only flair it such if the submitter does not discuss the disinfo likelihood himself. It looked to me like @Nomochomo did that here (though the submission was edited before I saw it, so that may not have been the case originally before @EricKaliberhall flair it.)

NOMOCHOMO ago

thanks Vin, this was my OP submission text

Dillon the Hacker is a YouTuber. He's now apparently dead.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dillon-the-hacker-dead/

But nobody knows exactly what happened...Some are even accusing it of being a stunt/troll

He's the first person who ever accused Dan Schneider of being a pedo on Video (2014)

https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZEYouTube

In what appears to be a fictional rant, Dillon repeatedly references Dan's Jewish Heritage. Claims he dated Ariana Grande before she was famous and personally heard stories of sex slavery and ritualized abuse of nickelodeon stars.

Archive this Video, YouTube could purge his account: https://youtu.be/ltbzdKB8jZEYouTube

I still haven't made up my mind on this whole spectacle. Whether Dillon is dead or alive, his "death" can be used to bring more attention to Dan Schneider's pedo proclivity

For the record @shewhomustbeobeyed

It was first flaired "possible disinfo" by @EricKaliberhall

Upon my contesting of the flair, and subsequent edit, @crensch gave it the 24 hour flair.

I appreciate the removals of the flairs.

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

I'm glad you guys have settled this.

I do not have the ability to save video. If you have a bitchute account or something similar, you can archive them yourself. Firefox has a video save, I hear.

Also, we are currently on lockdown, so i am unable to archive Voat submissions as well. You can take screenshots and I can archive those.

After reading the disagreement you had with the mods, I hope they can define their standards better.

Please be careful, septimasexta got banned the other day.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Thanks for witnessing. @Shewhomustbeobeyed

Ditto on mod standards @Vindicator @Crensch @erickaliberhall @heygeorge I had my post flaired as "Disinfo" or "Rule Breaking" for over a day.

Thus delegitimizing it, keeping people from reading it, and ultimately suppressing valid info dissemination.

to encourage the highest moderation standards, what if Mods had to sticky any posts that are deemed unfairly flagged/removed and flair them Supressed or Retraction

It's what Putt did with the Junkerman Post during our DDOS. Seems in line with Voat's pursuit of free speech

Vindicator ago

You're not trying to "encourage highest moderation standards" Nomo. You are eagerly taking advantage of what you perceive as an opportunity to attack the moderators of this board, which you have done since your very first day here, which occurred the same week we exposed the most nefarious, speech-suppressing user we've ever had on this board.

That guy was constantly attacking moderators as well.

If you don't want downvotes, stop acting like an asshole drama queen.

I had my post flaired as "Disinfo" or "Rule Breaking" for over a day.

Thus delegitimizing it, keeping people from reading it, and ultimately suppressing valid info dissemination.

Wanna back that up with some evidence? You can't, because it fake and gay. The flairs did not harm your submission in any way whatsoever. It's still #7 on the front page.

Furthermore, the 24 Hour Grace flair is specifically given to draw user attention to posts that need help so they can be preserved. The whole point of it is to get MORE people reading and assisting.

NOMOCHOMO ago

I'm calling Mods out when they fuck up. It's my duty to, because Mods aren't Gods. Ya'll need help sometimes

Why is my suggestion for a retracted or unfairly suppressed a bad idea?

You didn't attack my suggestion, just me personally. I'm detecting a pattern.

If you don't want downvotes, stop acting like an asshole drama queen.

Fuck off @Vindicator and get your Mods' moderation standards straight. Stop defending their mistakes.

I had to defend my post against two illegitimate moderator flairs. Both were removed without comment (thieves in the night)

Even after the flairs are removed, I continue to have a MODERATOR (@CRENSCH) claiming in comments that my post

runs afoul of the rules.

@Crensch is the drama Queen, apparently you are his bitch.

Vindicator ago

You are the most thin-skinned submitter I've ever seen on this board, Nomo. You've been suspicious and rude from day one, here. Crensch and Eric are both convinced you are EsotericShade. I'm the only one who is on the fence.

You have nothing but scorn for the submission rules, and the few mods who have been willing to sit in the hot seat and enforce them for the userbase. I didn't see this post in it's original form, and there is no archive of it, so I have no idea whether you edited it to fuck with @EricKaliberhall, or whether he gave a wrong flair. @Crensch got involved because he was called in by a separate, highly regarded user who also thinks you are trying to disrupt the board with disinfo and drama.

ProTip: Crensch is a Nazi...about the rules and a lot of other things. He has a MUCH more strict interpretation of the ruleset than I have ever had -- partly because he is not a pizzagate researcher and has never involved himself with the userbase of this board. I try to err on the side of leaving a post up, because who knows when we're going to get a great lead? Crensch's job was to police the mods and kill disinfo trolls.

So you could say I'm "his bitch" if you want. He can demod me at any time as the owner of this board. He stepped in because I have been very busy IRL and he was summoned. Normally, he lets me mod as I see fit, which I have always tried to do fairly and in accord with my perception of what the users desire.

Our ruleset is complex, and administering it is not always easy to do in a wise, fair and prudential manner. Sometimes mods make mistakes. Sometimes trolls set them up.

With 32,902 posts on the board, all of which have been read and weighed by mods, your little flair hiccup is a zit on a gnats ass. Someone who cared about this community more than himself would recognize that and behave magnanimously, not get his panties in a wad over a flair requested by users and go on a rampage about "moderation standards".

Grow up, dude. v/Pizzagate is not about you.

Also, next time you might want to message modmail when you have a problem. I've had you blocked since your equally juvenile attempt to bait me into a political fight about Trump. I don't see your pings.

NOMOCHOMO ago

So you could say I'm "his bitch" if you want. He can demod me at any time as the owner of this board.

@shewhomustbeobeyed

Yes I'm thin skinned about child abuse @Vindicator

Your only criticism of me is my attitude.

I'm sorry my brusque candor violates your gentle sensibilities O great arbiter of 32,902 posts.

Fee fees don't matter. Kids are getting raped.

@erickaliberhall hasn't commented since his original flair.

How about you ask him via modmail rather than publically me accusing me?

All you do these days is Ad Hominem and brag

Vindicator ago

Yes I'm thin skinned about child abuse @Vindicator

What is this supposed to mean, exactly?

You are thin skinned about yourself, Nomo. If you cared about the submission, you wouldn't be shitting up your own thread with a waterfall of drama guaranteed to make regular PG readers turn away and keep them from sharing it with their friends and family.

NOMOCHOMO ago

What is this supposed to mean, exactly?

Is english your second language?

I have been defending my post against #FalseFlairs and character attacks for 3 days.

Not a single one panned out.

All attacks came from Mods, not Pizzagate users

Even after flairs were removed, Mods continue accusing me of breaking post rules.

I guess that makes me "thin-skinned"