Step 7: Repeat steps 4 to 6 until you're ready to move on. Seed other catchment sites (don't know if a joke but Putt just claimed that Poal was another of his sites https://voat.co/v/whatever/4171434/26912802).
I mapped this somewhat on how eCelebs all seem to operate. They catch a disenfranchised market/audience (usually by giving lip service and general forum to their concerns), then soon enough start with either charity drives or crisis-funding drives to wrest "emergency" funds from them. It's so standard now I suspect there's a literal commercial instructional package available for the process somewhere - maybe part of that whole "Wealth Creation" movement that also eventuated in all those House-Flipping TV Shows?
If Putt actually does own Poal (and I didn't somehow miss "the joke") then this feels like a Wealth Creation strategy being played out. If he was okay with Voaters moving to Poal all along (as the linked comment above seems to suggest), and if maybe Poal has better and more stable code, he could have been promoting a greater migration all along with a long-term shutdown of Voat being the known end-point.
Instead, all we've gotten are these weird silences, no word on the angel investor disappearing, and Putt's stories about how hellish dealing with Voat's guts is.
Even with the Dead Canary theory in play, it would be mere moments before Poal became likewise Canary-less because it's not the site but the userbase that's of primary interest to TPTB and Glowshits.
And now this Ruqqus thing. Banning it only makes sense if they're sensitive to this kind of sketchy behavior becoming too familiar to their target market. If anything they should be happy to throw shade on Voat's/Putt's financial misdeeds because it would reenforce their own own position as the preferred "Free Speech" platform. Instead, they covered for Putt/Voat's malfeasance/scam AND blew their "Free Speech" credibility.
Maybe the "Voat's Missing Bitcoins" story will become like that Anti-CCP meme that they use on Pol to clear out Chink Shills. Something that triggers Bad Faith Players so much you see an instant, telling response to it - a different sort of Canary in fact.
view the rest of the comments →
Gorillion ago
Running the same scam perhaps.
Step 1: Reddit bans a community.
Step 2: Create a migration site.
Step 3: Maintain stability for a while.
Step 4: Fake a crisis!!
Step 5: Ask for donations to keep site alive.
Step 6: Build up Bitcoin wealth.
Step 7: Repeat steps 4 to 6 until you're ready to move on. Seed other catchment sites (don't know if a joke but Putt just claimed that Poal was another of his sites https://voat.co/v/whatever/4171434/26912802).
I mapped this somewhat on how eCelebs all seem to operate. They catch a disenfranchised market/audience (usually by giving lip service and general forum to their concerns), then soon enough start with either charity drives or crisis-funding drives to wrest "emergency" funds from them. It's so standard now I suspect there's a literal commercial instructional package available for the process somewhere - maybe part of that whole "Wealth Creation" movement that also eventuated in all those House-Flipping TV Shows?
If Putt actually does own Poal (and I didn't somehow miss "the joke") then this feels like a Wealth Creation strategy being played out. If he was okay with Voaters moving to Poal all along (as the linked comment above seems to suggest), and if maybe Poal has better and more stable code, he could have been promoting a greater migration all along with a long-term shutdown of Voat being the known end-point.
Instead, all we've gotten are these weird silences, no word on the angel investor disappearing, and Putt's stories about how hellish dealing with Voat's guts is.
Even with the Dead Canary theory in play, it would be mere moments before Poal became likewise Canary-less because it's not the site but the userbase that's of primary interest to TPTB and Glowshits.
And now this Ruqqus thing. Banning it only makes sense if they're sensitive to this kind of sketchy behavior becoming too familiar to their target market. If anything they should be happy to throw shade on Voat's/Putt's financial misdeeds because it would reenforce their own own position as the preferred "Free Speech" platform. Instead, they covered for Putt/Voat's malfeasance/scam AND blew their "Free Speech" credibility.
Maybe the "Voat's Missing Bitcoins" story will become like that Anti-CCP meme that they use on Pol to clear out Chink Shills. Something that triggers Bad Faith Players so much you see an instant, telling response to it - a different sort of Canary in fact.