"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Hentai-Semitism said:
Who's taking all those pictures of people holding their phones sideways? I see it all the time.
Click to expand...
If you know, you know, bro.
1747337428379.webp
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Narwhal, space man, Blackhole and 7 others
volatile puar said:
He visited the website in one of his recent videos, just didn't bother to actually read it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. To be honest. I don't expect anything more from him. It's not surprising to me, he isn't willing to say anything that actually goes against the kiwifarms bad narrative. Or even give it a proper chance. Usually his comments on kiwifarms in his videos, are talking about someone mentioning harassment, and brings up kiwifarms as a source of what he considers actual harassment.

I don't know if he actually knows anything about the site. To me it seems like he has just heard. Kiwifarms bullies people, they harass people, and assumed that's all there is to it. And ifyou post there, and aren't saying kiwifarms bad, kiwifarms harass, you must be a bad person that thinks harassing people is cool.

What I don't like us seeing people framing things obviously in, cringe to say this but it's the right term, bad faith Whether it's out of ignorance, or knowingly. It's why I hate the people like keffals, it's why I find a lot of the rhetoric about kiwifarms so frustrating. It's people running with the ideas that kiwifarms is this thing that people with interests against the site, have put out there. And, if people push back. That same hate mob will go after them too.

Thats what I don't like. And it's the reason, when I see people who I align with, in ideals or at least more closely align. Do the same thing. To me if you have to frame something dishonestly to get a win, all that does is weaken your side, and eventually give people a weak point to come back at in the future. It's also just hypocritical.

And I see people say, well they are willing to do that, why can't we give them a taste of their own medicine. Because it you do the same things they do. You aren't any different than them. You're just a different flavor of the same thing.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: I'm a Silly
The President of Nintendo said:
@Null here is something you can play next time you want to make chyat SUFFER. They call themselves "Drag Syndrome" which I think you'll find very self explanatory:

View attachment 7366295

Here they are on CNN:


Actually, they have a whole youtube channel here.

Edit - "At the end of the day, they are performers. Yeah, with an extra chromosome, but they are professional artists." AHAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT
Click to expand...
DSP's Tax Lawyer said:
If this gets on his podcast, I am holding you responsible
Click to expand...
Didn't he feature these guys about a year ago?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The President of Nintendo
@Null Nully Null you have to include my banger post in the Open-Source thread where a German sperg is trying to leverage Code of Conduct commitees into lawfare all off the devs of LLVM telling him to fuck off for bullshit AI bug reports. Acting like a pompous sped when they ask to give them a reproducer of his issue.
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/open-source-software-community.38130/post-21426538
Say hello to Marcus Seyfarth!
1747341970054.webp

1747342018178.webp1747342030561.webp1747342038386.webp1747342011368.webp
"This is the story of my personal experience with the LLVM project in GitHub Issue #72413, a journey that started with a simple bug report for a harmless but annoying issue and ended with a Code of Conduct Committee decision that I believe profoundly failed in its duty to ensure fairness and accountability and therefore damages the reputation of the LLVM project as a whole."
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/72413 / archive - "[compiler-rt] lots of "warning: unknown warning option '-Werror=builtin-declaration-mismatch'" messages"
So, this retard managed to find a bug in the LLVM toolkit that makes it spam a load of unnecessary warnings during compilation. Clearly this is very important - people actually read compiler messages, don't they?





This story is a bit complicated so I'll be keeping score. We start back in November 2023 with 1-0 for the bug reporter as it is indeed a real bug.




The first dev response suggests that the problem is the reporter's setup, which it isn't. Free goal for the bug reporter.



This February, the reporter bumped the thread and was asked for clear steps to reproduce. He responded with some scripts which the devs "might need to adjust", which is bad form if you're reporting a bug - an own goal



The devs ask again for minimal steps to reproduce, at which point our intrepid bug reporter outs himself as an "unpaid non-programmer", but worse, an AI-slop enjoyer - another own goal.




From here, things rapidly go downhill. The devs do not take kindly to AI slop, provoking the bug reporter to tell them to do their jobs and that his time is "too valuable" for this.

On top of this, he announces that he is a "law professional" and warns against future escalation, a bitch move that puts the devs in the lead.



The argument goes on for a while and our bug reporter now files a Code of Conduct complaint against the devs, another bitch move and another own goal.



Despite his tantrums, the devs were in fact trying to fix the bug. Encouraged, the bug reporter helpfully adds some more AI slop:




Things then went quiet. The original bug report got locked as "too heated", and the pull request was never merged. But last month, the LLVM CoC committee made their decision, telling the bug reporter (aka Marcus Seyfarth) that he's a whiny faggot. I can't find a copy of their decision, but luckily he really is a law graduate and made a INSANE RAMBLE on his blog:
https://seylaw.blogspot.com/2025/05/when-compiler-engineers-act-as-judges.html / https://ghostarchive.org/archive/d8fHM
1747259448203.webp

Open source thrives on collaboration. Users report bugs, developers investigate, and together, the software ecosystem improves. However, the interactions are not always trouble free. Central to this ecosystem are Codes of Conduct (CoCs), designed to ensure respectful interactions and provide a mechanism for addressing behavior that undermines collaboration. These CoCs and their enforcement are often a hotly disputed topic. Rightfully so! What happens when the CoC process itself appears to fail, seemingly protecting established contributors while penalizing those who report issues? As both a law professional with a rich experience in academia and practice as a legal expert who also contributes to various open source software projects over the past couple of years, I deeply care about what the open source community can learn from the law and its professional interpreters. This story hopefully ignites the urge to come up with better procedures that improve the quality of conflict resolution outcomes.

And there is much to learn both ways! This is the story of my personal experience with the LLVM project in GitHub Issue #72413, a journey that started with a simple bug report for a harmless but annoying issue and ended with a Code of Conduct Committee decision that I believe profoundly failed in its duty to ensure fairness and accountability and therefore damages the reputation of the LLVM project as a whole.

The Spark: Reporting a Valid Bug

In November 2023, I opened Issue #72413 reporting numerous warning messages during builds of LLVM's compiler-rt component. As an end-user (specifically, someone involved with CachyOS who compiles a lot of open source software using LLVM/Clang with highly optimized PKGBUILDs), my goal was simply to report a regression I observed.

The initial response from Gentoo developer and LLVM contributor Sam James (thesamesam) was unfortunately dismissive, suggesting it was "likely your toolchain setting it or your build script". This premature conclusion, later proven incorrect when another user (mati865) identified the causative commit, set an unhelpful tone from the start.

Providing Proof Amidst Challenges

Undeterred, and after the issue was confirmed by others, I dedicated significant effort in early February 2025 to provide comprehensive information for developers. This included:

  • Detailed logs (PKGBUILD, makepkg.conf, CMake logs).
  • Scripts that reproduce the problem.
  • Testing under different build configurations (ENABLE_PROJECTS vs. ENABLE_RUNTIMES).
Thankfully, developer Alexander Richardson (arichardson) who was responsible for the code change that introduced the regression and some other users engaged constructively, leading to a potential fix being developed. This is how the process should work!

The Turn: Unwarranted Hostility and Escalation



However, the situation deteriorated sharply when Sam James refused to engage with the provided reproducer scripts by abruptly stating "I'll unsubscribe from this bug now", abandoning the issue. I was deeply fed up by then for his unwillingness to come up with any constructive and forthcoming contributions of his own in that thread to solve the technical issue. While I had already put in a significant amount of time and effort, he still kept demanding for more but wasn't showing good will to invest mere seconds for trivial changes to my scripts. Maybe the comment that voiced my anger crossed a line, too. I take full responsibility for that. But I think that this provoked reaction is understandable after all the time and effort spent to solve this issue constructively by a non-technical person. I did soften my tone in the follow-up comments [1], [2], significantly to show my willingness to de-escalate and focus on the technical issues instead and came up with a proposed fix made with AI later on. While that turned out to be flawed, it further demonstrated my good intentions to contribute to a solution for a bug.

The intervention of yet another Gentoo developer, Eli Schwartz (eli-schwartz), brought the drama to a whole new level. Instead of focusing on the technical issue, Schwartz launched into a series of comments that were, in my view, sarcastic, dismissive, personally insulting, and escalated the situation unnecessarily:


This is not what I consider to be tolerable behavior.

The CoC Process: Seeking Accountability, Finding Failure

Facing this hostility, and after attempting de-escalation myself, I felt I had no choice but to invoke the process designed for such situations: I filed a formal report with the LLVM Code of Conduct Committee. I documented the behavior I found unacceptable, hoping for a fair review.

The committee's decision, delivered on April 9th, 2025, was shocking. It concluded that Eli Schwartz and Sam James did not violate the Code of Conduct. Instead, it found me in violation, citing principles like "be considerate" and "be kind," based on wrong interpretations of my comments made during the heated exchange initiated by others. They encouraged me to apologize.

Deconstructing the Committee's Flawed Decision

The committee's judgment is, in my firm opinion, deeply flawed and fails to withstand scrutiny when compared against the documented record:

  1. Ignoring Blatant Violations: The committee completely absolved Eli Schwartz, whose comments contained direct personal insults, sarcasm, and inflammatory remarks – clear violations of the CoC's core tenets of respectful communication. Sam James's dismissiveness and disengagement were also ignored.
  2. Mischaracterizing My Actions:
    • They claimed I was "Expecting a solution and refusing to provide the help..." This is factually incorrect. I provided extensive diagnostics and even an analysis and tested code modification (even if imperfect, it showed effort and moved towards resolution). The linked comment shows me offering help.
    • They focused on my frustrated phrase "actually do your job" while ignoring the preceding hostility, the context that provoked it and the rest of that particular comment that provided further context for my frustrations. My phrasing was harsh, yes, but it wasn't an unprovoked attack like those I received. Having to change a few lines of code in my provided scripts is not too much to ask for a developer for reproducing the issue. Not for the involved Gentoo developers, I suppose.
    • They accused me of "Making threats and weaponizing the Code of Conduct" by linking to Eli Schwartz's comment. Stating I had filed a report (my Feb 5 comment) after enduring abuse is using the prescribed process, not weaponizing it. So much for a fair assessment of the facts in that thread.
    • They claimed I implied "[my] time is more valuable](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/72413#issuecomment-2632427578)" based on Eli's hostile misreading of a common phrase about limited resources (my Feb 4 comment). They even linked this finding incorrectly to the "do your job" comment.
  3. Ignoring Context and Timeline: The committee failed to recognize that Eli Schwartz's aggression preceded my stronger reactions. His behavior was the catalyst for escalation, not the other way around. Their judgment twists cause and effect.
  4. Overlooking Positive Contributions: The decision completely ignores that despite the hostility, I persisted and contributed analysis and code changes that directly addressed the technical issue. This contradicts any narrative that I was merely complaining without contributing.
  5. Apparent Bias and Lack of Accountability: The outcome strongly suggests a bias favoring established contributors over external users. It magnified my reactive missteps while minimizing or ignoring clear, proactive CoC violations by others. This isn't impartial judgment; it's a failure of accountability.
My Stance and Broader Implications

I have formally rebutted the committee's decision and stated that I cannot accept their flawed judgment. This isn't just about one minor code issue any longer; it's about the integrity of the Code of Conduct process and the health of the LLVM community.

When a CoC committee fails so clearly, it sends a chilling message:

  • Users reporting bugs may face hostility with little recourse.
  • Established contributors can seemingly act with impunity.
  • Non-technical contributions (like detailed reporting, diagnostics, and even analysis assistance) are undervalued or dismissed.
  • The process meant to ensure a welcoming environment can be used to silence those who challenge unacceptable behavior from established contributors.
This LLVM CoC committee's handling of Issue #72413 represents a failure to act responsibly and impartially. It undermines trust in the very mechanisms designed to foster a healthy, collaborative community. Open source depends on contributions from everyone, and that requires CoC processes that are fair, thorough, unbiased, and hold everyone accountable to the same standards. In this case, LLVM's process fell disturbingly short.

The broader community deserves to know how these situations are handled, I think. It's time for a conversation about how to ensure Code of Conduct committees actually fulfill their crucial role as judges in such conflicts effectively and equitably, ensuring that open source remains truly open and welcoming to all who wish to contribute in good faith. This example highlights the harm that can be done to a community if important members fail to live up to their own standards.



The Appeal Process Begins: Further Concerns Arise

Following my detailed rebuttal outlining the failures of the initial decision on April 9th 2025, I received a response from the LLVM CoC committee on April 10th 2025 acknowledging the appeals process. However, their communication immediately raised further concerns by cautioning me against using "threats and demands" – seemingly interpreting my deadline for confirmation and my stated intention to seek transparency as such.


This necessitated a further response to clarify my position and formally initiate the appeal while addressing these new points. Key arguments I raised in my formal appeal communication include:

1. I categorically rejected the interpretation of my actions as "threats" or "demands."

"Setting a deadline for confirmation that my appeal is being considered is a standard request for procedural clarity. Stating my intention to publicly share my documented experience with this process, should it lack a satisfactory resolution, is an exercise in seeking accountability, not an act of intimidation... My requests for reconsideration, acknowledgement of documented CoC violations by others, and a revised, fact-based assessment are substantive points of my appeal, not impermissible 'demands.'"

My intention was clearly stated as seeking accountability and transparency, leveraging the LLVM CoC's own definitions which limit actionable "threats" to contexts like physical danger or ongoing harassment – clearly not applicable here.

2. I argued that the initial decision itself constitutes a violation of the LLVM Code of Conduct by the committee members involved.

"A CoC process that results in a decision perceived as biased, dismissive of evidence, and disrespectful towards a participant fails to uphold the very spirit and letter of the Code of Conduct it is meant to enforce... Therefore, the decision itself, in its clear disregard for fairness, context, and the principles of respectful and considerate engagement, constitutes a failure to adhere to the LLVM Code of Conduct by its own administrators."

By ignoring evidence, demonstrating imbalance, and failing to adhere to principles like "be respectful," "be considerate," "be welcoming," and "try to understand why," the committee undermined the very foundation it is supposed to uphold.

3. Formal Request for Recusal Due to Bias: Given the flaws and apparent bias in the original decision, I formally requested the recusal of the original committee members from handling the appeal.

"Based on the significant and demonstrable flaws in the initial decision... I hereby formally request the recusal of all committee members who either participated in rendering that original decision or where there is a conflict of interest by being too close to the Gentoo project from any involvement in this appeal process... Expecting the same members who produced a decision exhibiting such clear analytical flaws and apparent biases to now conduct an objective review of a challenge to that very decision is contrary to basic principles of procedural fairness."

I also explicitly raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest stemming from closeness to the Gentoo project, given the individuals involved in the original issue.

4. Highlighting Procedural Vagueness: I noted the lack of clarity in the documented appeals process regarding safeguards for impartiality.

"Please confirm that this procedural safeguard [review by uninvolved members] will be implemented for the handling of my appeal as it isn't clearly stated in the appeal process section of the response guide. That vagueness of the appeals process is a point of concern... Without the stated safeguards in place, I would not consider the appeals process fair and sound."

The Saga Continues: Procedural Roadblocks and Cross-Project Conflict

Just when you think a process focused on conduct might prioritize substance, procedural maneuvering often takes center stage. Following my detailed appeal, outlining the significant flaws in their initial decision, their response was unfortunately telling. Instead of engaging with the core arguments about ignored evidence, mischaracterizations, and apparent bias, the committee replied asking only for "new or different evidence," stating the appeal "looks to only refer to the public GitHub issue report that was already analyzed."

This response is a classic example of procedural obstruction. It attempts to invalidate an appeal based on flawed reasoning by demanding new facts. My appeal's central argument is that their initial analysis of the existing facts was fundamentally flawed and biased. To demand entirely new evidence as the sole basis for appeal effectively shields the original, faulty decision-making process from scrutiny. It's a refusal to engage with the substance of the critique, raising serious questions about the committee's willingness to correct its own errors or act in good faith. I have formally responded, reiterating that a flawed analysis is grounds for appeal and restating my request for recusal of the original members.

This latest exchange underscores the ongoing challenges in achieving a fair and impartial review within the current LLVM CoC framework. It highlights a reluctance to engage with substantive criticism and a tendency to control the narrative rather than addressing the core issues of accountability and respectful community engagement raised by the original incident.



As the law is my profession, questions of accountability and fairness matter deeply to me, it should be a concern to all LLVM contributors as I call the integrity of the process and the involved committee members into question. As far as I see, none of the committee members bring some kind of legal experience to the table. They might be distinguished compiler engineers, but as this case has demonstrated, that might not qualify them as a good judge. I have confronted the LLVM Board of Directors with this case and asked the Board to take action on my behalf to correct the presented shortcomings, but in their reply from May 10th, the Board has concluded that they agree with the decision and resolution made by the LLVM Code of Conduct Committee.

Hence I am forced to take this case to the public to expose all of these shortcomings as the people involved were not able to act upon their own mistakes responsibly and damaged the LLVM community to a great amount.

If you want to know who the current committee members are or who sits on the Board of Directors, just follow the given links.

Conflict Spills Over: The Mesa Incident

Disturbingly, the negativity surrounding the LLVM CoC issue wasn't contained. Shortly after these events, I was involved in a separate incident on the Mesa project's GitLab (Mesa Issue #13022). After providing a detailed bug report (which included a brief AI analysis at first that turned out to be controversial for some), bisect, and testing patches that led to a swift technical resolution by the Mesa developers (kudos to Timur Kristóf!), the discussion took a negative turn, initiated by Matt Turner who works for Google but is affiliated with Gentoo.

Despite having already removed a section of AI-assisted analysis from my original Mesa post at the first suggestion it wasn't helpful, Matt Turner explicitly linked the LLVM CoC controversy into the Mesa thread, characterizing my use of AI there as "noise" and "net negative."

This opened the door for Eli Schwartz to once again inject personal hostility. He entered the Mesa thread repeating accusations derived from the LLVM conflict, labeling my good-faith (though admittedly imperfect) attempt to use AI as "harassment by LLMs," employing sarcastic analogies, and falsely claiming I had accused LLVM developers of "failing in their fiduciary duties." He explicitly stated my actions were "not good faith."

I must respectfully disagree with the framing that implies my actions inherently showed a lack of respect or unduly imposed upon others in this specific Mesa instance or necessarily justified the importation of external conflicts. My use of an AI tool, for example, was explicitly stated as an attempt to bridge a knowledge gap and assist diagnosis, offered in good faith, not as a finished product demanding review or intending disrespect. That it provoked such strong reactions yet again from some developers was surprising to me. The part in the original OP was also very brief. While its utility can certainly be debated, framing its mere use as inherently disrespectful feels overly harsh. There is also no Mesa policy known to me that governs the use of such AI analysis. The Gentoo developers pointed me towards their clear policy, but from the comments of other developers received in the thread, some take a more pragmatic approach and I take away that there is no consensus on this topic for the Mesa project. Yet I faced some hostile reactions from different developers even though I proactively acted upon the initial reaction from Timur and edited the OP to delete the AI analysis. The other part of AI analysis that remained in the thread was a summary of my downstream changes in the hope that they contained something useful for upstream. My wording made it clear that I left it entirely to the developers to decide if they want to spend some time on it or not. They chose to take a brief look and gave me useful comments as I cannot judge the technical merits of the generated code and analysis on my own. I am grateful for such constructive criticism. However, everything from the point when Matt Turner entered the thread, I consider destructive as I cannot see anything useful in them for the already solved technical issue, it was solely meant to discredit me personally.

Once again these two Gentoo developers showed a lack of good manners. This cross-project importation of personal grievances and hostility is unacceptable. It derailed the Mesa discussion, ultimately leading to the Mesa maintainer locking the thread. It demonstrates a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single project and appears targeted. While the Mesa maintainers acted appropriately by locking the thread to stop the derailment, the incident serves as further evidence of the unproductive and hostile engagement non-technical contributors can face, initiated and perpetuated by individuals that might hold a personal grudge against me.

These latest developments – the LLVM CoC committee's procedural deflection and the spillover of hostility into the Mesa project – further underscore the systemic issues at play in the FOSS ecosystem. It highlights not only a potentially broken internal review process within LLVM but also a willingness by some individuals to carry conflicts across community boundaries, poisoning interactions elsewhere. It strengthens the case that transparency and accountability are urgently needed.

To end on a positive note, the other kind of developer deserves my respect that remains calm under stress, shows respect to others, comes up with pragmatic solutions and can keep their personal emotions under control when interacting with non-technical people like me. I can imagine that from their perspective, it isn't always easy to interact with laymen and the sheer amount of issue reports can be taxing. I value such professional behavior very much - you know who you are.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
He's now posting his blog wherever he can, including Hackernews (archive) and Reddit:

https://old.reddit.com/r/LLVM/comments/1kjh1y9/llvm_coc_process_under_scrutiny_my_experience/ / https://ghostarchive.org/archive/0BrVr

1747259523293.webp

There's also this github repo which is just highlighting all the "dramatic" disputes on various projects too. Enjoy. https://github.com/neodrama/github-drama - Kiwifarms mentioned!
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: indomitable snowman, Pedophobe, Ralph Barnhardt and 1 other person
prollyanotherlurker said:
What I don't like us seeing people framing things obviously in, cringe to say this but it's the right term, bad faith
Click to expand...
IDK if you view this a problem in search of a solution, but it did make me think about how I would describe KF to Alien X. I'd use the existing framework of the encyclopedia, then narrow it to imagining what it would be like if all of Wikipedia were nothing but the discussion pages, and the material catalogued therein were "people who shouldn't be famous, but are."
Again, maybe a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, but it reframes things for people who aren't satisfied with the perfectly succinct "gossip site," and opens the door to a comparison with other parts of the internet that are given much more leeway.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: h3catoncheries and prollyanotherlurker
I'm a Silly said:
IDK if you view this a problem in search of a solution, but it did make me think about how I would describe KF to Alien X. I'd use the existing framework of the encyclopedia, then narrow it to imagining what it would be like if all of Wikipedia were nothing but the discussion pages, and the material catalogued therein were "people who shouldn't be famous, but are."
Again, maybe a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, but it reframes things for people who aren't satisfied with the perfectly succinct "gossip site," and opens the door to a comparison with other parts of the internet that are given much more leeway.
Click to expand...
Maybe it would be helpful. I think some people do blow off the gossip site thing. Because while it's true. I think, they think people are trying to lie about what the site actually is. When it is essentially just a gossip site. Also a bit of an archive, and other things.

But then they look at the Wikipedia, at least if I'm remembering correctly the Wikipedia page says it's a place where people organize trolling, and all of this stuff. And for sure a lot of articles and videos say that. And it would be nieve to say, no one that uses the site, has done any trolling. But it absolutely isn't some place where people just openly come up with gay-ops and trolling plans.

And they will always bring up the doxing thing. Which, it's such a weird topic. Because I absolutely believe that the leftist types that hate the site. Talk about kiwifarms doxing the way they do. Because every time you see people on their side doing it. It's always a wink wink, nudge nudge. Totally don't go ruin this persons life and spray paint a swastika on their garage and key their car. So I think they project what they are doing with it onto the site, with it's doxes.

And I'm sure some people have posted doxes here because they wanted to mess with the people. To me, it usually feels more autistic and neutral though. Like not so much a threat, or some kind of intimidation, but just collecting absolutely every piece of information possible on the person in question.

Obviously that's going to depend on the person the thread is about. But to me it's more nuanced. In general the site is more nuanced, than the discussion around it, often is. Or I at least feel like the discussions are misguided by people's preconceived notions of what the site actually is

. But I've probably just thought about it too much tbh. Bro, why can't I just have a site that lets me call a fat retard a nigger, and talk shit about lolcows. I think the troons are just mad because there is one thing on the Internet they will never be able to control, and corrupt. They already got 4chan. But they will never take kiwifarms.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: I'm a Silly
volatile puar said:
I've seen a few clips of Kirsche, you should clarify you mean "relative to the AGP whose sexual fantasy is to be the object of someone else's sexual fantasy"
Click to expand...

Desu Mountain said:
Yeah, saying Kirsche isn't degenerate on main rings very hollow. She has a habit of oversharing.
Click to expand...
So she talks about her relationships on stream. Big whoop. She doesn't show coochie or fucking fart fetishes. Have some matter of scale here people.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Clamater, whatsupwthat and 6 others
@Null I know you hate anime, manga, and Japan in general. But I wonder if you hate Copyright more or not.
Screenshot_20250515_165312.webp
At current count over 800 manga titles were taken down. Don't know if you know what scanlation is but most if not all of said titles were essentially fan projects done since the titles worked on would otherwise never be known outside Japan.
Usually these scanlations actually increased the popularity of unknown series and lead to cash flowing in where it otherwise wouldn't have. Lot of these are now just lost to time also as scanlation teams quit or leave so unless they somehow pop up again when they've been otherwise gone for 3+ years the media is now gone as well.

Update: New current count of titles taken down is over 1.1k
 
Last edited:
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MrReeShopper, Rattus Ebrius, DoofusMoscovium and 13 others
ChaosReignsOnSomeSaturday said:
@Null I know you hate anime, manga, and Japan in general. But I wonder if you hate Copyright more or not.
View attachment 7367225
At current count over 800 manga titles were taken down. Don't know if you know what scanlation is but most if not all of said titles were essentially fan projects done since the titles worked on would otherwise never be known outside Japan.
Usually these scanlations actually increased the popularity of unknown series and lead to cash flowing in where it otherwise wouldn't have. Lot of these are now just lost to time also as scanlation teams quit or leave so unless they somehow pop up again when they've been otherwise gone for 3+ years the media is now gone as well.
Click to expand...
The nips are complete faggots about manga scans outside of Japan. They don't do fuck all with their corpus of works beyond trying to shill their kikery Shoenen Jump subscription service for Nanban Whitu Piggu. They should be going full bore nonstop development since even normie bookstores have a fucking manga section now and they act like bugmen regardless.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Seafarer, ChaosReignsOnSomeSaturday, I'm a Silly and 2 others
This is related to the incident with Ana Valens / Philip Wythe's terror campaign against Kirsche resulting in Philip deactivating his twitter.

This clip is Asmongold torturing his audience with Philip' rape dungeon fanfic and then calling him a lunatic that belongs in an insane asylum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: They were once men, Pedophobe, Unhinged duck and 2 others
prollyanotherlurker said:
But I've probably just thought about it too much tbh. Bro, why can't I just have a site that lets me call a fat retard a nigger, and talk shit about lolcows. I think the troons are just mad because there is one thing on the Internet they will never be able to control, and corrupt. They already got 4chan. But they will never take kiwifarms.
Click to expand...
I just thought of another:
What if Unicorn Riot, but politically neutral?😹
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: prollyanotherlurker
ChaosReignsOnSomeSaturday said:
@Null I know you hate anime, manga, and Japan in general. But I wonder if you hate Copyright more or not.
View attachment 7367225
At current count over 800 manga titles were taken down. Don't know if you know what scanlation is but most if not all of said titles were essentially fan projects done since the titles worked on would otherwise never be known outside Japan.
Usually these scanlations actually increased the popularity of unknown series and lead to cash flowing in where it otherwise wouldn't have. Lot of these are now just lost to time also as scanlation teams quit or leave so unless they somehow pop up again when they've been otherwise gone for 3+ years the media is now gone as well.
Click to expand...
Pretty much dead or ofline soon remove dmcas
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ChaosReignsOnSomeSaturday
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back