Well, you have to take the assumption that PIA = Voat Investor. There is no evidence for this, it was assumed this was the case because within a few months of the "voat investor", Puttitout said he had been contacted with PIA VPN service to offer it to like 20-100 goats for free, if they posted a pic with Voat username showing them using PIA.
Logically, this is FALSE, as "voat has an investor" and "PIA offered to give free VOn for a year to 100 goats" are mutually exclusive statements. One may INFER from these events, but one does not link to the other, logically. (In terms of actual, formal Logic.)
So, once one makes that leap of faith (again, not a connection of logic), one then might start to make other, smaller leaps of faith, not loigc, and continue down the path of where u/Cransch went with it.
Now, this does not mean that u/Cransch is WRONG, it just means that his conclusions and work has not been logically proven, and therefore isn't necessarily TRUE (in terms of formal Logic.)
In my mind, one has to Prove the PIA = Voat investor link concretely to make this start to fall into place. THAT is where the research and investigation needs to go. Suppositions <> TRUE.
view the rest of the comments →
cyclops1771 ago
Well, you have to take the assumption that PIA = Voat Investor. There is no evidence for this, it was assumed this was the case because within a few months of the "voat investor", Puttitout said he had been contacted with PIA VPN service to offer it to like 20-100 goats for free, if they posted a pic with Voat username showing them using PIA.
Logically, this is FALSE, as "voat has an investor" and "PIA offered to give free VOn for a year to 100 goats" are mutually exclusive statements. One may INFER from these events, but one does not link to the other, logically. (In terms of actual, formal Logic.)
So, once one makes that leap of faith (again, not a connection of logic), one then might start to make other, smaller leaps of faith, not loigc, and continue down the path of where u/Cransch went with it.
Now, this does not mean that u/Cransch is WRONG, it just means that his conclusions and work has not been logically proven, and therefore isn't necessarily TRUE (in terms of formal Logic.)
In my mind, one has to Prove the PIA = Voat investor link concretely to make this start to fall into place. THAT is where the research and investigation needs to go. Suppositions <> TRUE.
Cransch ago
Voat -> Edon -> Imperial Family -> London Trust Media - > Kape/PIA
It's as simple as follow the money.