Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


IncogNET filed an official complaint against HE with the Attorney General of Washington State - Page 7
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

IncogNET filed an official complaint against HE with the Attorney General of Washington State

15791011

Comments

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @sillycat said: Hurricane Electric responded to the complaint

    I mean, I'll try to pull the best devil's advocate that I can here just for argument's sake. If I received a child porn complaint at any hosting company I worked for, I terminated the customer. Usually the person complaining would also report it to the police, but for my part I would kick them out right then and there. That means as a hosting provider I did play police. I did preemptively enforce law.

    So I want to say "If it's criminal, why are they playing police instead of calling the police?" I typed that at first, but I have events in my past that I still consider to have been handled appropriately which contradict what I wanted to say.

    Taking off devil's advocate hat:

    What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine. That seems much more nuanced to me. I don't think I would have instantly terminated a customer for being accused of that, as a hosting provider. Not unless it violated my policies. If it didn't, I would refer the complainer to the police and I would tell them that I'm happy to cooperate with law enforcement.

  • emghemgh Member

    For what it’s worth this forum have seen some crazy shit in the last few months

    I quite like that @SirFoxy made LEB show a whole different ”aura” compared to LET, especially for newcomers, who I’d imagine often come through LEB. I, at least, wouldn’t want people’s first impression to be that this is some kind of alt-right forum for edgelords

    To be fair though:

    I’d much rather have people’s first reaction be ”oh this is a space about cheap servers and Linux where all of the major drama about politics, race, religion etc don’t matter”

    And that goes for both LET & LEB

    But I guess segregation in opinion mostly is growing so fast that even a server forum can’t be a ”safe space”

    Thanked by 2SirFoxy crunchbits
  • emghemgh Member

    Also, I think that everyone who wants to update the community on the Kiwi siutation or anything about it can use the C’est pit in all honesty

    Or a dedicated thread to Kiwi stuff

    I know this thread isn’t about Kiwi per se, but c’mon, this is the internet, ain’t nobody gonna seperate the two

    Thanked by 1ahnlak
  • @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    The distinction between criminal speech and free speech in the US is an extremely technical matter that requires a 7-year degree tailored to your specific jurisdiction to fully understand. I maintain, as I explain in my post, that a website cannot harass someone.

    I think that even if you make a website called "joshuamoonsucks.org" and you fill it full of lies, you have at best given rise to a civil tort of defamation. If you take your Internet connection and send me dozens of emails threatening my life, follow me to other sites to talk to me there, contact family to intimidate them, etc - then you've committed harassment. But in and of itself, joshuamoonsucks.org can never be considered a criminal offense and I have never seen case law to the contrary anywhere in the US.

    With your example of CSAM, compare how that would go down. You report CSAM to the ISP. They investigate, sure enough it looks like it. Out of abundance of caution, they block the network. The service responds that they've been mistaken and it's an adult actress: here's her 2257 proving it. The service is restored. This is good faith behavior that is not censorship. It is responsible business.

    There was no parallel with the Kiwi Farms. HE did not identify "criminal harassment" and block the network, identifying specific instances of allegedly criminal content to be addressed. In fact, they never pointed to what part of their AUP was even violated. The site just goes offline and it's not up for discussion. This is censorship. They identified an entire service, and a community of tens of thousands of people, and decide they should not exist.

    I also want to say, in regards to SirFoxy, that his articles are some of the most unprofessional and obviously biased articles that I've ever seen on the topic. He is deliberately trying to SEO poison the site and purport it as a criminal enterprise even though his own articles are contradictory.

    His last article falsely implies that there was a connection between LolekHosting, which was seized for piracy(?) at what I have been informed is a different datacenter than SprintPL. He shows the A record for kiwifarms.pl that has the SprintPL IP. He also lists all of LolekHosting's subnets. There is no overlap. He indicates that he is lying in his own article through his own body of evidence.

    I believe his intention is to lie that the Kiwi Farms violates Polish criminal codes to try and get our other host, which is also Polish, and perhaps the NIC for .pl, to block service for the forum. His behavior is obviously malicious, his articles are trash, and they do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. It is embarrassing that LET pays this person to shit out articles that would probably get a negative reception on the Kiwi Farms for being too egregiously and blatantly factually correct.

    I actually sent a complaint to LET about his last article and he responded himself instead of allowing someone else to consider what was said and maybe point out what a snake he is to Biloh. He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin. I've already wasted too much effort debunking what is a Buzzfeed-tier smear piece.

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member
    edited August 2023

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    The distinction between criminal speech and free speech in the US is an extremely technical matter that requires a 7-year degree tailored to your specific jurisdiction to fully understand. I maintain, as I explain in my post, that a website cannot harass someone.

    I think that even if you make a website called "joshuamoonsucks.org" and you fill it full of lies, you have at best given rise to a civil tort of defamation. If you take your Internet connection and send me dozens of emails threatening my life, follow me to other sites to talk to me there, contact family to intimidate them, etc - then you've committed harassment. But in and of itself, joshuamoonsucks.org can never be considered a criminal offense and I have never seen case law to the contrary anywhere in the US.

    With your example of CSAM, compare how that would go down. You report CSAM to the ISP. They investigate, sure enough it looks like it. Out of abundance of caution, they block the network. The service responds that they've been mistaken and it's an adult actress: here's her 2257 proving it. The service is restored. This is good faith behavior that is not censorship. It is responsible business.

    There was no parallel with the Kiwi Farms. HE did not identify "criminal harassment" and block the network, identifying specific instances of allegedly criminal content to be addressed. In fact, they never pointed to what part of their AUP was even violated. The site just goes offline and it's not up for discussion. This is censorship. They identified an entire service, and a community of tens of thousands of people, and decide they should not exist.

    I also want to say, in regards to SirFoxy, that his articles are some of the most unprofessional and obviously biased articles that I've ever seen on the topic. He is deliberately trying to SEO poison the site and purport it as a criminal enterprise even though his own articles are contradictory.

    His last article falsely implies that there was a connection between LolekHosting, which was seized for piracy(?) at what I have been informed is a different datacenter than SprintPL. He shows the A record for kiwifarms.pl that has the SprintPL IP. He also lists all of LolekHosting's subnets. There is no overlap. He indicates that he is lying in his own article through his own body of evidence.

    I believe his intention is to lie that the Kiwi Farms violates Polish criminal codes to try and get our other host, which is also Polish, and perhaps the NIC for .pl, to block service for the forum. His behavior is obviously malicious, his articles are trash, and they do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. It is embarrassing that LET pays this person to shit out articles that would probably get a negative reception on the Kiwi Farms for being too egregiously and blatantly factually correct.

    I actually sent a complaint to LET about his last article and he responded himself instead of allowing someone else to consider what was said and maybe point out what a snake he is to Biloh. He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin. I've already wasted too much effort debunking what is a Buzzfeed-tier smear piece.

    Cope

    Edit: the only information you provided me is that you didn’t know your LLC was invalid because your registered agent didn’t want to do business with you anymore, btw.

    I released the entirety of your only response with anything of substance here on LET.

    Neutral William style interview is still available.

  • Q.E.D.

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @JoshuaMoon said: HE did not identify "criminal harassment"

    Maybe we're all misunderstanding each other and what HE identified was criminal harassment against their staff, and they decided it wasn't worth putting up with it anymore.

    I mildly joke but I mean, death threats are VERY common coming from the people you constantly piss off.

  • JoshuaMoonJoshuaMoon Member
    edited August 2023

    @jar said: I mildly joke but I mean, death threats are VERY common coming from the people you constantly piss off.

    It's very unfortunate that criminals are willing to resort to such measures to censor an Internet forum, but I believe Hurricane Electric has the resources to ensure the safety of their staff. As well, the American citizen endures a large tax burden to fund a militarized police force so that things like our First Amendment rights may not be infringed by these kinds of people.

    Sorry if that sounds dismissive, I realize that I am a massive pain in the ass to work with because of the nightmare tsunami that follows me everywhere I go, but the fact is we need one of two things to preserve the Internet:

    1. People with the balls to stand up to these threats.
    2. Common carrier protections that allow ISPs to fall back on "we legally can not remove it".

    As far as I'm concerned, HE should jump at the opportunity to just light up the network again and go "welp, Washington state doesn't allow it, please contact your representative instead of us". What are the people-of-gender going to do if they legally can't take us down?

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member
    edited August 2023

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: I mildly joke but I mean, death threats are VERY common coming from the people you constantly piss off.

    It's very unfortunate that criminals are willing to resort to such measures to censor an Internet forum, but I believe Hurricane Electric has the resources to ensure the safety of their staff. As well, the American citizen endures a large tax burden to fund a militarized police force so that things like our First Amendment rights may not be infringed by these kinds of people.

    Sorry if that sounds dismissive, I realize that I am a massive pain in the ass to work with because of the nightmare tsunami that follows me everywhere I go, but the fact is we need one of two things to preserve the Internet:

    1. People with the balls to stand up to these threats.
    2. Common carrier protections that allow ISPs to fall back on "we legally can not remove it".

    As far as I'm concerned, HE should jump at the opportunity to just light up the network again and go "welp, Washington state doesn't allow it, please contact your representative instead of us". What are the people-of-gender going to do if they legally can't take us down?

    The wordage you just used is so weirdly radicalized:

    • “criminals”
    • “American citizen endures a large tax burden to fund a militarized police force”
    • “First Amendment rights may not be infringed by these kinds of people”
    • “What are the people-of-gender going to do if they legally can't take us down”

    Your classic us vs. them narrative is intentionally designed to create a divisive and emotionally driven response.

    You’re literally appealing to the same audience as Trump, with the same tactics.

    Your post on Telegram about the AG of Washington had actual calls for violence (from your audience) to the AG of Washington.

    Don’t be surprised when you go too far and proud boy yourself.

  • You are not going to goad me into a line-by-line rebuttal of your bullshit mate. I have nothing to say to someone so obviously malicious.

  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran
    edited August 2023

    So, HE responded to the AG complaint:

    On July 21st, 2023, we received an abuse report via email from an industry colleague saying Hurricane Electric was announcing a prefix that contained the IP addresses used by kiwifarms and was in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).

    Unnamed industry colleague filed a report that was never seen or shared or mentioned by anyone before today. Common industry practice, that we all are aware of, is abuse reports are generally sent downstream. Not uncommon to give a 24 hour window to respond. We never received one, but we're not a direct HE customer, but our upstream never received one either.

    Hurricane Electric did not prevent other networks on the Internet from announcing this prefix to Hurricane Electric

    &

    Hurricane Electric is not blocking kiwifarms packets from crossing the Internet and Hurricane Electric's network.

    Basically, HE is saying, "We're not blocking access to the site. We're simply denying the route if it ends with one of our direct customers, but the packets can still flow over our network to another network instead, so long as the end point isn't one of our direct customers."

    Regardless if they're right, wrong, or somewhere in between they behaved in the upmost unprofessional manner. Forget everything you know about Kiwifarms, and ask yourself if you'd support their decision if they had done this to an abortion clinic's website, access to HRT information, a political party, etc.

    The claim of an abuse report completely contradicts what was relayed originally, and they're being technically obtuse on purpose.

    Thanked by 2kait sillycat
  • emghemgh Member
    edited August 2023

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin

    Calling people ”brain damaged cretin” is the Kiwi way, not the LET way

    I hope that everyone who reads this, even if you believe in a free internet, understand why I don’t want the farmers on here

    Less to do with ideology and more to do with a constant fighting over who’s the most edgelord for the day

    Thanked by 2ahnlak Arkas
  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran

    @emgh said:

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin

    Calling people ”brain damaged cretin” is the Kiwi way, not the LET way

    I hope that everyone who reads this, even if you believe in a free internet, understand why I don’t want the farmers on here

    Less to do with ideology and more to do with a constant fighting over who’s the most edgelord for the day

    I mean, it's tit-for-tat at this point. I don't see anything wrong with it. Be concerned equally at the language and jabs by others to be concerned over that.

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • emghemgh Member

    @MannDude said:

    @emgh said:

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin

    Calling people ”brain damaged cretin” is the Kiwi way, not the LET way

    I hope that everyone who reads this, even if you believe in a free internet, understand why I don’t want the farmers on here

    Less to do with ideology and more to do with a constant fighting over who’s the most edgelord for the day

    I mean, it's tit-for-tat at this point. I don't see anything wrong with it. Be concerned equally at the language and jabs by others to be concerned over that.

    Of course you don’t, you’ve made that abundantly clear

    Thanked by 2SirFoxy MannDude
  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran
    edited August 2023

    @emgh said:

    @MannDude said:

    @emgh said:

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin

    Calling people ”brain damaged cretin” is the Kiwi way, not the LET way

    I hope that everyone who reads this, even if you believe in a free internet, understand why I don’t want the farmers on here

    Less to do with ideology and more to do with a constant fighting over who’s the most edgelord for the day

    I mean, it's tit-for-tat at this point. I don't see anything wrong with it. Be concerned equally at the language and jabs by others to be concerned over that.

    Of course you don’t, you’ve made that abundantly clear

    Just trying to remain unbiased is all.

    If you read the comments and posts on KF you'd know that the language used here is very PG. I'd say that him saying 'brain damaged cretin' as a jab is incredibly kind and PG, especially when the other side is implying you're a criminal or worse.

    Like I said, tit for tat.

    Thanked by 2Marx sillycat
  • emghemgh Member

    @MannDude said:

    @emgh said:

    @MannDude said:

    @emgh said:

    @JoshuaMoon said:

    @jar said: What still bothers me is that in my cases, it was objectively extremely illegal and harmful. Where as I don't know that I can agree that "criminal harassment" is something HE is able to determine.

    He didn't incorporate any of the information I provided LET, and instead insisted I allow him to interview me, as if I would ever want to talk to this brain damaged cretin

    Calling people ”brain damaged cretin” is the Kiwi way, not the LET way

    I hope that everyone who reads this, even if you believe in a free internet, understand why I don’t want the farmers on here

    Less to do with ideology and more to do with a constant fighting over who’s the most edgelord for the day

    I mean, it's tit-for-tat at this point. I don't see anything wrong with it. Be concerned equally at the language and jabs by others to be concerned over that.

    Of course you don’t, you’ve made that abundantly clear

    Just trying to remain unbiased is all.

    If you read the comments and posts on KF you'd know that the language used here is very PG. I'd say that him saying 'brain damaged cretin' as a jab is incredibly kind and PG, especially when the other side is implying you're a criminal or worse.

    Like I said, tit for tat.

    ”He’s much more disgusting over there!”

    Thanked by 2SirFoxy MannDude
  • @JoshuaMoon said:
    You are not going to goad me into a line-by-line rebuttal of your bullshit mate. I have nothing to say to someone so obviously malicious.

    You run a site for lonely incels to ogle at mentally ill people, so that they feel better about their own miserable lives. How are you trying to make some kind of moral argument here?

    Mentally strong people are focused on improving themselves and providing a contribution to this world.

    Do you even realize how dangerous and toxic the platform you grew, control, and influence actually is?

    Your audience looks at you like a leader. It was all fun and games for the Proud Boys until they went too far, too.

    Words said online manifest into real consequences in the real world. You can be held responsible for radicalizing your audience.

  • I'll wait for the day Joshua becomes implicated in a federal case for hosting one of the worst cesspits on the internet. Right now, words might not have much impact (or hurt anybody), but when some members take their actions to an extreme, he will likely live with regret while staring at a concrete ceiling.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited August 2023

    @Thundas said:
    I'll wait for the day Joshua becomes implicated in a federal case for hosting one of the worst cesspits on the internet. Right now, words might not have much impact (or hurt anybody), but when some members take their actions to an extreme, he will likely live with regret while staring at a concrete ceiling.

    Unless your ideas are popular enough to the right people. Then the person who commits an act of violence from your incitement is just a lone gunman. Funny how life works that way. Only certain people are given the right to speak in hateful, violent language without repercussion.

    Not that either should be praised, but speech is speech. If all you have to do is shoot someone and say he incited you to shut him up, I've zero doubt his most radical detractors would be all too happy to do so. Asshole though Josh may be, he's not often poking at mentally stable people, to the best of my knowledge. Not attracting mentally tough people either, so who knows, could be a forum member as well, I suppose.

    Thanked by 1Thundas
  • @jar said: Unless your ideas are popular enough to the right people. Then the person who commits an act of violence from your incitement is just a lone gunman. Funny how life works that way. Only certain people are given the right to speak in hateful, violent language without repercussion.

    Not that either should be praised, but speech is speech. If all you have to do is shoot someone and say he incited you to shut him up, I've zero doubt his most radical detractors would be all too happy to do so. Asshole though Josh may be, he's not often poking at mentally stable people to the best of my knowledge.

    In the case of platforms like Kiwi Farms, where controversial discussions often take place, there is a need for responsible moderation and a consideration of the potential consequences of certain types of speech. While some might argue for an absolute laissez-faire approach to free speech, it's crucial to recognize that unchecked and harmful rhetoric can contribute to real-world harm.

    The notion of a "lone gunman" is complex, as it raises questions about how influence, echo chambers, and radicalization can play out in online spaces. It's not solely about assigning blame to a single individual, but rather about acknowledging the broader factors that contribute to the actions of certain individuals.

    While it's essential to respect freedom of expression, it's equally important to create an environment where harmful and potentially dangerous rhetoric is not allowed to flourish. Responsible moderation, clear community guidelines, and a commitment to open dialogue can help strike a balance between allowing different perspectives and preventing harm within online communities like Kiwi Farms. At the end of the day, points that I highlighted above decides whether Kiwi Farms can finally get back on the Clearnet.

    Thanked by 1SirFoxy
  • MannDudeMannDude Host Rep, Veteran
    edited August 2023

    @Thundas said:
    decides whether Kiwi Farms can finally get back on the Clearnet.

    It's on the clearnet now.

    But I do agree that echo chambers can be harmful to one's perception of the world and their general support for the ideas being discussed.

    Thanked by 2jar sillycat
  • @MannDude said: It's on the clearnet now.

    For how long?

    @MannDude said: But I do agree that echo chambers can be harmful to one's perception of the world and their general support for the ideas being discussed.

    When 99.9% of hosting/ISP companies regard the other echo chamber as persona non grata, it certainly raises questions about the situation, doesn't it?

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited August 2023

    @Thundas said:
    When 99.9% of hosting/ISP companies regard the other echo chamber as persona non grata, it certainly raises questions about the situation, doesn't it?

    I think you'll find that 1000% of this situation that causes passionate disagreement is about the difference of opinion as to who should be taking what role in answering what questions that you've referenced as having been raised.

    Thanked by 1Thundas
  • HalfEatenPieHalfEatenPie Veteran
    edited August 2023

    I'm only here for the drama and the shitpost.

    This post does not contribute to the thread in any meaningful way.

    Thanked by 1Marx
  • @jar said: I think you'll find that 1000% of this situation that causes passionate disagreement is about the difference of opinion as to who should be taking what role in answering what questions that you've referenced as having been raised.

    Imagine this: you've got these hosting service providers who are acting like the content police. Some folks are fired up because they're worried about censorship. They're saying, "Hey, shouldn't we have the right to say whatever we want, as long as it's not breaking the law?" On the flip side, you've got others saying, "Hold up, these platforms have a responsibility to make sure things stay safe and respectful. They're not the government, but they do have a role in shaping what kind of content is out there."

    So, while the whole "who's in charge" thing is part of the puzzle, there's this whole debate about freedom of speech, corporate control, and the role these hosting providers play in shaping our online world. It's like a clash between the principles of free expression and the need to keep things civil.

    Ultimately, if there were a vote to exclude these types of discussions from let/leb, I would cast my vote in favor, given that the topic resembles a black hole that would persist endlessly throughout time.

    Thanked by 2jar Arkas
  • what happen here?

  • JoshuaMoonJoshuaMoon Member
    edited August 2023

    Your fantasies of me being arrested are strange. Generally, people need to break a law to be arrested.

    I comply with court orders. I obey the law. I do moderate to comply with US law and community ethos.

    I'm really sorry that you don't like what people are saying but they're really not doing anything at all, nevermind anything illegal. The "look, don't touch" thing is not just a cheap legal facade. It is a deep part of the zeitgeist of the users and crossing the line is not tolerated.

    The excuse that we were banned from many places, therefore we deserve to be banned from more, is a fallacy. Unfortunately, many companies do tend to rely on this false consensus, which makes it increasingly difficult for us to find service moving forward. The cascade of service loss appears to uniformed onlookers that we really must just be so awful and illegal. It is an illusion of due process.

    The reality is much sadder: a lot of very, very nasty people want the forum in the memory hole. No company wants to deal with that. No common carrier ISPs means we have no rights.

    If the largest ISP in the world blocks us and gets away with it in the one state with net neutrality, the Internet is truly a corporate walled garden. I am going up put everything into keeping it open.

    Thanked by 3kait sillycat fatchan
  • sillycatsillycat Member
    edited August 2023

    @Thundas said: For how long?

    It's been up and running since June 29th, with a few small bumps in the road. Seems like the current strategy is working out...

    Thanked by 1kait
  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member
    edited August 2023

    @JoshuaMoon said:
    Your fantasies of me being arrested are strange. Generally, people need to break a law to be arrested.

    I comply with court orders. I obey the law. I do moderate to comply with US law and community ethos.

    I'm really sorry that you don't like what people are saying but they're really not doing anything at all, nevermind anything illegal. The "look, don't touch" thing is not just a cheap legal facade. It is a deep part of the zeitgeist of the users and crossing the line is not tolerated.

    The excuse that we were banned from many places, therefore we deserve to be banned from more, is a fallacy. Unfortunately, many companies do tend to rely on this false consensus, which makes it increasingly difficult for us to find service moving forward. The cascade of service loss appears to uniformed onlookers that we really must just be so awful and illegal. It is an illusion of due process.

    The reality is much sadder: a lot of very, very nasty people want the forum in the memory hole. No company wants to deal with that. No common carrier ISPs means we have no rights.

    If the largest ISP in the world blocks us and gets away with it in the one state with net neutrality, the Internet is truly a corporate walled garden. I am going up put everything into keeping it open.

    Why would a legitimate site need multiple shell companies and the founder to relocate outside of the United States?

    You keep arguing US laws, but you live in Eastern Europe to escape western ideology and society.

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • SirFoxySirFoxy Member
    edited August 2023

    @sillycat said:

    @Thundas said: For how long?

    It's been up and running since June 29th, with a few small bumps in the road. Seems like the current strategy is working out...

    Few small bumps is being kicked off like 6 hosts, having an entire domain revoked, HE dropping routes directly, and then crying to the AG of Washington?

    Thanked by 1emgh
This discussion has been closed.