Diseased Sanctioned Suicide - "Kill yourself" but unironically with sodium nitrite. Higher death count than the Farms. Targeted by parents, legislators, and journalists looking to alter Section 230.

Null · Jan 25, 2023

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

Can't wait to see who you list on your next annual

afounder said:
That WHOIS data has been there since the site was registered in 2021, the company was founded around the same time...

That's a 2022 report and I don't see any updated whois

And yes your incel site and SS shared the same buyvm florida IP in 2022,

you previously listed your sites under your brothers name

you're lying again lamarcus,

it's possible you're dipping from the server this month just like you did late 2021

but I'm done, go on

afounder · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
Can't wait to see who you list on your next annual

That's a 2022 report and I don't see any updated whois

If you have eyes, you will see that the creation date of the sanctioned-suicide.org which is 2021-01-28. That has been the registration information on the domain ever since its creation.

Markass the Worst · Jan 25, 2023

I think the best thing for @afounder to do is to get verified by the mods here as being an original founder of SS in Talk to Staff. This sort of slapfighting helps no one and just causes confusion.

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

afounder said:
If you have eyes, you will see that the creation date of the sanctioned-suicide.org which is 2021-01-28. That has been the registration information on the domain ever since its creation.

actually I do see an upated whois, you removed Vokl within the last few days. It was Vokl on Jan 21st and now it lists redacted

https://archive.vn/44bFK

Markass the Worst said:
I think the best thing for @afounder to do is to get verified by the mods here as being an original founder of SS in Talk to Staff. This sort of slapfighting helps no one and just causes confusion.

No one is arguing he wasn't an original founder. He's just trying to say that he gave up ownership but forgot to remove the company legally registered under his name under the whos, until a few days ago, conveniently around the time of the lastest scrutiny on him

Markass the Worst · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
No one is arguing he wasn't an original founder. He's just trying to say that he changed owners but forgot to change the whois until a few days ago

I suggested TTS verification so he could also prove he no longer owns the site and is completely uninvolved with it.

afounder · Jan 25, 2023

Markass the Worst said:
I think the best thing for @afounder to do is to get verified by the mods here as being an original founder of SS in Talk to Staff. This sort of slapfighting helps no one and just causes confusion.

I'd gladly get verified, but I'm not going to entertain crackpot theories about who's running what and whatnot. It's just not something worth fighting about. We have no involvement or control over anything with SS at this point, but I'd be more than happy to verify in any way I can.

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

Markass the Worst said:
I suggested TTS verification so he could also prove he no longer owns the site and is completely uninvolved with it.

Prove it by how because the whois shows he owned it on paper as late as 4 days ago

and why would you trust a dude who tried to pin his blood related brother as the owner of his websites in 2021

like here https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html

afounder · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
Prove it by how because the whois shows he owned it on paper as late as 4 days ago

and why would you trust a dude who tried to pin his blood related brother as the owner of his websites in 2021

like here https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html

Perhaps the simple answer to your question is that WHOIS information is usually not something that gets updated constantly. The current owner of the domain may have simply removed the company from the WHOIS when it was pointed out as it no longer is involved with the website.

Markass the Worst · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
Prove it by how because the whois shows he owned it on paper as late as 4 days ago

and why would you trust a dude who tried to pin his blood related brother as the owner of his websites in 2021

like here https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html

I'm not sure, but he might be able to reveal who the current owner of SS is, for instance.

I skimmed the transcript (here's an archive that can access the transcript btw). He deflected it on his brother during the phone call from the NYT reporter, presumably because he was panicking from getting grilled by a journo. I don't think a moment of distress is a good judge of character but I could be wrong.

afounder · Jan 25, 2023

Markass the Worst said:
I'm not sure, but he might be able to reveal who the current owner of SS is, for instance.

I skimmed the transcript (here's an archive that can access the transcript btw). He deflected it on his brother during the phone call from the NYT reporter, presumably because he was panicking from getting grilled by a journo. I don't think a moment of distress is a good judge of character but I could be wrong.

Holy shit someone lied to a narcissistic, lying journalist. How will we ever cope...

Fentanyl Floyd · Jan 25, 2023

@afounder pretty fitting of you to leave a tranny in charge of a forum about suicide

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

Markass the Worst said:
He deflected it on his brother during the phone call from the NYT reporter, presumably because he was panicking from getting grilled by a journo. I don't think a moment of distress is a good judge of character but I could be wrong.

He also registered his brother as the owner in almost everything I've seen prior to 2022. People were dumping Epik leak snippets on Twitter and it was all his brothers name. There's no evidence his brother was involved in any of these websites, but I could be wrong.

Two brothers working on incel and suicide sites would be bizarre, but it's possible.

Markass the Worst · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
He also registered his brother as the owner in almost everything I've seen prior to 2022. People were dumping Epik leak snippets on Twitter and it was all his brothers name. There's no evidence his brother was involved in any of these websites, but I could be wrong.

Two brothers working on incel and suicide sites would be bizarre, but it's possible.

Is this brother the Randy Thompson mentioned in the NYT podcast?

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

Markass the Worst said:
Is this brother the Randy Thompson mentioned in the NYT podcast?

nah, his last name is also ;edit Small but I wanna leave him out of this if he actually is not involved. If people think he is involved and need the brothers name for whatever reason, it's relatively trivial to find.

Sorry I mean his last name is also Small. Can't edit the previous post for whatever reason

BrunoMattei · Jan 25, 2023

Sailor Troon said:
I, like many others in this thread, have mixed feelings about this website and the people involved. The OP says that the anti-SS parents are "MATI", but I believe their reactions are absolutely justified given the tragedy they've all had to face. I think calling them MATI / A-Logs is pretty tasteless -- they aren't comparing a fat, Sonic-obsessed manchild to a war criminal; they've experienced a true tragedy that may not have occurred had SS not existed. You also can't compare these parents to Keffals, Dong-Gone, and co. because they aren't looking to torch evidence of their consent accidents, troonshining operations, and grooming Discords -- they're grieving and they want to prevent this tragedy from happening to other parents. Honestly, if I were in these parents' position, I'd be advocating for a squeaky-clean, highly-censored corporate internet and the repeal of Section 230 too if I thought that it would bring justice to a site that had a hand in taking away my child.

I do think sites like SS should be taken down because arguably they're imminent threats to human life (proudly protected by Cloudflare!), but repealing Section 230 isn't the way to do it, as others have said in the thread. That will be incredibly disastrous for the free internet and the state of public discourse. I think that we need to further examine the suicides that are connected to SS and see how many are directly connected to the website and how much content on that site is actually illegal, and the case shouldn't be touched by woke activists, lying journoscum, and trannies who will do anything to take away free speech or have a #DropKiwiFarms-style campaign like the one that mother has against Section 230.

I'm going through this thread but taking down a site like this won't do anything. If someone wants to end it then they're going to do it not unless you have them physically restrained of course. It seems like people on this suicide forum are cheerleading then fuck them but people who are intent on doing this are going to do it regardless. All you're doing by removing sites like this is giving them fewer options on how to do it... And best case scenario there is that they fuck up but haven't done any permanent damage.

Perhaps if you want to help (in a shitpost-y way) is add methods but it turns out that they're deliberately duds? Like say, take 4 edibles and Mountain Dew Code Red and there's something in the Code Red where you just die but the people who take it just pass out and a have a decent nap for a change?

Sargon's wife's son · Jan 25, 2023

F*** all the moral fagging assholes you know maybe we should shut down all those gender clinics giving dangerous chemicals to 10-year-olds and 9 year olds no no random website that probably no one goes to

porch_day · Jan 25, 2023

I don't actually have any issues with suicide sites and have hung out around vestiges of alt.suicide.holiday (which still exist and are a lot more mature than SS). I think the parents have a legitimate grievance however given... they lost their children. And because SS is owned by the same guys who run another site that encouraged suicide to depressed teens for no good reason. And because the suicide method of choice of SS since founding is a super bizarre, elaborate, painful method.

afounder · Jan 25, 2023

porch_day said:
I don't actually have any issues with suicide sites and have hung out around vestiges of alt.suicide.holiday (which still exist and are a lot more sensible than SS). I think the parents have a legitimate grievance however given... they lost their children. And because SS is owned by the same guys who run another site that encouraged suicide to depressed teens for no good reason. And because the suicide method of choice of the forum since founding is a super bizarre, elaborate, painful method.

You sure do have an obsession with the founders of this particular suicide website for some reason, for someone that don't have an issue with suicide websites. It sounds like you have a problem with one of the founders and you're just using the fact that their identities were exposed to try to get back at them in some way. Either way, I don't really care. We have moved on from the site and we're doing bigger and better things, but it seems that you won't let go.

Of course, the parents have a legitimate grievance, they lost their children, and we sympathize with them, but chasing the founders of said site for operating a legal website isn't the correct way of going about it, nor is changing section 230. The best way to resolve this crisis is by improving access to mental health services and by improving peoples lives in a meaningful way to where they're not pushed to commit suicide. If lawmakers directed their energy towards that instead of going after an obscure suicide forum on the internet, we would be in a much better place.