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

Screenshot 2025-07-31 200019.webp
Slatz has spoken. I've changed my mind. You should do it.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Simple Wood Plank, BondoBob, JustSomeDong and 3 others
I was present when the wired magazine guy spent like two weeks with the Patriotic Nigras. He came on a raid with us where we crashed the entire grid. Wired Guy (what we all called him) was very fair to us.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Burekbossman
WelperHelper99 said:
It seems so. You should do it man. I say that, but you've probably made up your mind already. Just be aware of who they are when talking to them and you'll be fine. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Click to expand...
Awful idea. You can make a reasonably accurate character judgement on an individual or a podcast, an organization that hires scumbags to write up garbage for clicks? how could you ever fucking trust them? You know what they're like, they have an HR department and a board to answer to, they get any financial pressure whatsoever and it's completely over.

I think you should stick to streamers or organizations with faces and lead by individuals that you could potentially trust.

Or at the very least organizations with semi similar values to yours.

At the very least any interview you have with a journalist has to be one you have a full recording of yoursslf.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: GungusDingaling, Day Walker, BondoBob and 2 others
God's strongest milkman said:
Awful idea. You can make a reasonably accurate character judgement on an individual or a podcast, an organization that hires scumbags to write up garbage for clicks? how could you ever fucking trust them? You know what they're like, they have an HR department and a board to answer to, they get any financial pressure whatsoever and it's completely over.

I think you should stick to streamers or organizations with faces and lead by individuals that you could potentially trust.

Or at the very least organizations with semi similar values to yours.
Click to expand...
Trust them? Assume they have the worst intentions. Go anyway prepared for bullshit. It's a unique opportunity that doesn't happen often. Cowardice is how you never progress.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: idkcumiguess and Fecal Position
Null said:
i've been genuinely busy this week with some really weird shit.
Click to expand...
You might remember this.
The End of Kiwi Farms, the Web’s Most Notorious Stalker Site
Users harassed people for a decade. Then they messed with the wrong woman.
Click to expand...
www.wired.com

The End of Kiwi Farms, the Web’s Most Notorious Stalker Site

Users harassed people for a decade. Then they messed with the wrong woman.
www.wired.com www.wired.com
(behind a gaywall but archived)

It's a story about the brave and beautiful heroine Keffals and her noble crusade to fight evil, and how we totally don't exist any more.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Drama Fan, CeleryBread, Stupid Sexy Flanders and 21 others
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: I'm a Silly
  • Like
  • Winner
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Not A Cat Person, Provably Wrong, VeteranOfTheRetardWars and 56 others
1754011381555.webp
black beard bill coming in from left
Pirate site designation would be dependent on rightsholders showing that they are harmed by a site’s activities, that reasonable efforts had been made to notify the site’s operator, and that a reasonable investigation confirms the operator is not located within the United States.

Additionally, rightsholders must show that the site is primarily designed for piracy, has limited commercial purpose, or is intentionally marketed by its operator to promote copyright-infringing activities.

If the court classifies a website as a foreign pirate site, rightsholders can go back to court to request a blocking order. At this stage, the court will determine whether it is technically and practically feasible for ISPs to block the site, and consider any potential harm to the public interest.

The granted orders would stay in place for a year with the option to extend if necessary. If blocked sites switch to new locations, the court can also amend blocking orders to include new IP addresses and domain names.

Blocking Through Service Providers
The Block BEARD bill broadly applies to service providers as defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) of the DMCA. This is a broad definition that applies to residential ISPs, but also to search engines, social media platforms, and DNS resolvers.

Service providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers are explicitly excluded, and the same applies to venues such as coffee shops, libraries, and universities that offer internet access to visitors.

Unlike the FADPA bill introduced by Representative Lofgren earlier this year, the Senate bill does not specifically mention DNS resolvers. Block BEARD does not mention VPNs, but its broad definition of “service provider” could be interpreted to include them.

The proposal states that providers have the option to contest their inclusion in a blocking order. Once an order is issued, they would have the freedom to choose their own blocking techniques. There are no transparency requirements mentioned in the bill, so if and how the public is informed is unclear.

Companion Bill with MPA and RIAA Support
The Senate’s Block BEARD bill is substantially similar to the House version, FADPA, and could be considered a companion bill. Since legislation has to pass both the House and the Senate, a combination of both proposals may ultimately lead to the final blocking legislation.

Commenting on the introduction, Senator Tillis hinted at this cooperation, mentioning that collaboration between the Senate and the House is already ongoing.

“I’m proud to lead this bipartisan discussion to protect our creative economy and digital security and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House to address this important matter,” Sen. Tillis said.

Rightsholder groups have also responded positively to the bill. Mitch Glazier, CEO of the music industry’s RIAA, thanked the Senators for their efforts to protect consumers and rightsholders.

“Similar tools have been proven effective around the world over the last ten years with no harm to speech, Internet infrastructure or security, or participation online, and we strongly support this effort to create a simple, effective, judicial remedy with due process in the U.S,” Glazier said.

Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin is equally pleased.

“With bold leadership from Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff, the Block BEARD Act will equip our nation with a tool that’s worked in dozens of countries worldwide: a narrow, targeted means to fight the worst forms of foreign piracy while protecting free speech and the rule of law,” Rivkin said.

Notably, the press release did not include any comments from service providers. However, they are likely to chime in as the bill makes its way through the legislative process.
Click to expand...
Efforts to introduce pirate site blocking to the United States continue with the introduction of the "Block BEARD" bill in the Senate. The bipartisan proposal, backed by Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff, aims to create a new legal mechanism to combat foreign piracy websites. Block BEARD is similar to the previously introduced House bill "FADPA", but doesn't directly mention DNS resolvers.

congressAfter a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new pirate site blocking bill, titled the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA).

This week, a similar proposal was introduced by Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff. The bipartisan bill, titled Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors (Block BEARD), aims to introduce a legal mechanism for rightsholders to request site blocking orders.

Block BEARD
The site-blocking proposal seeks to amend U.S. copyright law, enabling rightsholders to request federal courts to designate online locations as a “foreign digital piracy site”. If that succeeds, courts can subsequently order U.S. service providers to block access to these sites.
Click to expand...
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Not A Cat Person, Croak & Caw, Leather Gliscor and 3 others
northstar747 said:
wish josh could get a moment like this

Click to expand...
Almost perfect except that he should've not given her an interview. Even when the guy clearly catches her in a lie, she only lies more. The only truthful thing she alluded to was when she said "sometimes we gotta make stuff up to get people's attention" which is the biggest red flag you could get.
 
How do you plea elon musk?
1754013558874.webp
Technology31 Jul 2025 12:22 pm AESTShare
Full Federal Court Rejects X Corp. Appeal
The Full Federal Court has today ruled that X Corp. was required to respond to an eSafety transparency notice seeking information about steps Twitter, Inc. took to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse material on its platform.

X Corp. appealed the Federal Court's decision from October last year, which found that X Corp. was required to comply with the transparency notice that eSafety gave to Twitter, Inc. in February 2023.

Twitter, Inc. merged into X Corp. in March 2023.

In rejecting all grounds of X Corp.'s appeal, the Full Court ordered X Corp. to pay eSafety's costs.

"In early 2023, we asked some of the world's biggest technology companies, including Twitter, to report on steps they were taking to comply with the Australian Government's Basic Online Safety Expectations in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material on their platforms," eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said.

"This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company."

eSafety takes compliance with transparency notices seriously.

"eSafety will continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia," Ms Inman Grant said.

"Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable."

eSafety's civil penalty proceedings against X Corp. in relation to its alleged non-compliance with the transparency notice, are ongoing.

Background

The Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE) notice applied to steps taken by Twitter, Inc. during the period of 24 January 2022 to 31 January 2023.

After Elon Musk acquired Twitter, Inc., incorporated in Delaware, United States, it was merged with X Corp., incorporated in Nevada, United States, in March 2023.

The Full Court's judgment can be found on the Federal Court website.

eSafety's concise statement for the civil penalty proceedings and further background can be found in our media release, eSafety initiates civil penalty proceedings against X Corp.
Click to expand...
..
Safety has today commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp. for its alleged failure to comply with a non-periodic reporting notice (a ‘transparency notice’) given in February 2023 under the Online Safety Act.

The transparency notice required information about how the provider was meeting the Basic Online Safety Expectations in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material and activity on Twitter (subsequently renamed ‘X’).

eSafety alleges X Corp. failed to comply with the notice. Specifically, eSafety alleges that X Corp. did not prepare a report in the manner and form specified because it failed to respond or failed to respond truthfully and accurately to certain questions in the notice.

It is important that X Corp. and other providers are deterred from non-compliance with statutory notices.

eSafety gave X Corp. an infringement notice for $610,500 in September 2023 for its failure to comply with the notice.

X Corp. did not pay the infringement notice. It has sought judicial review of eSafety’s reliance on the transparency notice and the giving of the service provider notification and the infringement notice.

eSafety is requesting the judicial review be heard in tandem with the civil penalty proceedings to avoid delays to either process.

Further information on the transparency notice can be found here:

Second set of tech giants falling short in tackling child sexual exploitation material, sexual extortion, livestreaming of abuse
Responses to transparency notices
Click to expand...
ORDERS


VID 1186 of 2024


BETWEEN:

X CORP

Appellant

AND:

ESAFETY COMMISSIONER

Respondent


order made by:

MURPHY, CHARLESWORTH AND HORAN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1 On 22 February 2023, the eSafety Commissioner issued a Reporting Notice to Twitter Inc., pursuant to s 56(2) of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth). At that time, Twitter was a publicly traded company incorporated under the laws of Delaware in the United States of America (USA) and was the provider of a social media service of the same name.

2 The Reporting Notice required Twitter to produce a report about its compliance with defined “basic online safety expectations” for the period 24 January 2022 to 31 January 2023.

3 In accordance with s 56(2)(c), Twitter was required to provide a report to the Commissioner within the period specified in the Reporting Notice or within a longer period allowed by the Commissioner. The last date for compliance specified in the Reporting Notice was 29 March 2023.

4 Section 57 of the Online Safety Act is a civil penalty provision. It provides that a person must comply with a notice given under s 56(2) to “the extent that the person is capable of doing so”. Section 103(1) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) (Regulatory Powers Act) is to the effect that an infringement officer may give a person an infringement notice for an alleged contravention if the infringement officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has contravened (relevantly) s 57 of the Online Safety Act.

5 On 15 March 2023, Twitter merged with X Corp (a private company incorporated in the State of Nevada in the USA). As the surviving entity of the merger, X Corp from that date became the provider of the social media service (renamed “X”).

6 On 29 March 2023, X Corp provided a Report to the Commissioner in compliance or purported compliance with the Reporting Notice given to Twitter.

7 On 3 October 2023, an infringement officer issued an Infringement Notice to X Corp, pursuant to s 103 of the Regulatory Powers Act (applicable by virtue of s 163 of the Online Safety Act) on the basis that the information contained in the Report was incomplete or misleading. The Infringement Notice claimed contraventions of s 57 of the Online Safety Act for each day between 29 March 2023 and 5 May 2023, with cumulative daily penalties totalling $610,500.00.

8 X Corp commenced an application for judicial review of the decision to issue the Infringement Notice. Among other things, it sought declarations under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to the effect that it was not obliged to comply with the Reporting Notice, and that the Infringement Notice was void, inoperative or invalid. The grounds for review broadly raised three arguments.

9 X Corp contended that the Reporting Notice had been issued to Twitter (an entity that no longer existed) and that, for the purposes of s 57 of the Online Safety Act, X Corp was not the “person” required to comply with it.

10 Alternatively, X Corp alleged that for the purposes of s 56(2) of the Online Safety Act, the Commissioner had allowed it until 5 May 2023 to comply with the Reporting Notice, such that there had been no breach in the period between 29 March 2023 and that date.

11 It further argued that the Infringement Notice was invalid because it did not specify the place of the contravention as required by s 104 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

12 The primary judge rejected each of those arguments and so dismissed the application for judicial review: X Corp v eSafety Commissioner [2024] FCA 1159 (J). This is an appeal from that judgment.

13 The five grounds of review are collectively to the effect that the primary judge erred in rejecting the arguments summarised above.

14 For the reasons that follow, the primary judge did not err in the manner alleged.

15 It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

All this time and I didn't realize "felted" was a reference to poker table felt. I unironically thought it was a reference to craft felting where you card wool, wet it, and then stab it with needles under pressure.

Like I thought someone had heard their grandma say that, repeated it, and everyone just went along with it to be cool.

God what is wrong with me.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kongou Posting, Jershua Coomer Troon, deadtofaunus and 11 others
Hey Josh, I know you talked about how the EU was trying to break away from the Internet to have its own internet separate from the United States. Do you think this most recent push for internet censorship is in any way related to that?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: I'm a Silly
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back