Princeton apologizes for threatening emails

[waffle]

Lol I hope they get sued into the dirt. It is generally prohibited to threaten to engage in a legal

I think @NigKid is basically right even through some of them went to left wing places. It's a study on how to do an intimidation campaign and what works on who.

 

[Large]

To Whom It May Concerm,

My name is Victor Coutand, and I am a resident of your walls.

Sincerely,

Victor Coutand

 

[Besachf Jhakut]

[...] From what I got out of that article a researcher can only do experiments on people if they volunteer, but somehow they wrote this up with the assumption that it would only affect computers, so it was a-okay to spam it to everybody.

There are supposed to be protections against this, prompted by prior abusive experiments which the article touched on a couple of infamous and I'd add fraudulent examples:

First, let me point out that, for whatever reason, the Princeton University Institutional Review Board determined that the privacy study did not constitute human subjects research. They could not be more wrong.

All research universities have these for anything that might affect humans and I'd assume other things like experiments on various types of animals, and Princeton's IRB completely dropped the ball. That's going to set up Princeton itself for liability in the inevitable and should be a slam dunk however long it takes class action lawsuit.

 

[ddlloo]

There are supposed to be protections against this, prompted by prior abusive experiments which the article touched on a couple of infamous and I'd add fraudulent examples:All research universities have these for anything that might affect humans and I'd assume other things like experiments on various types of animals, and Princeton's IRB completely dropped the ball. That's going to set up Princeton itself for liability in the inevitable and should be a slam dunk however long it takes class action lawsuit.

Where's another Peter Thiel when you need one.

 

[BelUwUga]

So I have a question I never got a not retarded answer about from eurocucks and redditors, maybe the farms can help me out here. Forum selection clauses are critical in limiting liability exposure and it's usually not enough of an issue for it to really cost anything. It's intentionally unwise not to include a favorable one in the TOS. Assuming I'm not retarded and not located in California, how on earth would they have jurisdiction? Yes the supposed victim may reside in California but isn't that point rendered invalid when you can point out they agreed that on your site, they are legally where the TOS designates in terms of jurisdiction (usually server location or office location). I know long-arm laws can have a wide latitude but that would be excessive.

Further, how would it even be relevant to a French citizen? Now we've theoretically got a company not in California, with no servers in California, and a user who isn't even in the country. How is California statute anything but irrelevant in those circumstances? I've had coaching on GDPR from employer's counsel before and those are pretty straightforward "GFY!" responses.* It seems like California is hardly any better.

*I got to be the customer service PBX boss fight. Usually the front line people were good enough to make the Eurofags go away without me getting involved. For some reason all of the ones that made it to me were French. I'd pretend I thought they were speaking Spanish and transfer them to our bilingual team at least once. Then, like I was explaining it to a toddler, I'd explain my employer couldn't give less of a fuck what they decided over there. Our company is over here and operating under one set of laws. They sought us out and agreed to this in order to even use the site. Absent a valid court order from a court with jurisdiction over us, nothing ever got deleted or willingly handed over in response to demands. I'm like 95% sure I have my "Spicy Frogs" spreadsheet in one of my backup drive still, years after leaving that company. I can tell you their info was almost certainly safe with my former workplace. Now it's just with some fucking random American that is reminded of the swearing and screaming he experienced every time I see that file. GDPR made those people less safe in the long run.

 

[Seasoned News Reporter]

Freeradicals.zone , the group mentioned in the supplied email, is a leftwing mastodon instance.

Funfact kiwifarms gets a mention... in their suspended servers list:

kiwifarms.cc

Literal Nazi stuff. Pediophilia advocacy.

I'm sorry, did I misread this? Pediophilia advocacy? Outside of the obviously brainlet spelling error, when the hell has kiwifarms in any form advocated for pedophilia? I understand cc is the pleroma server & I haven't really done much more than skim it cause I care not for social media tbh but I've not see anything that even remotely to allude to advocation?. How many members of freeradical unironically visit allthefallen? Cause this sounds an awful lot like hardcore projection.

 

[Fomo Hoire]

I guess it could be argued we're advocates because we let it be mentioned and we don't have rules about keeping sources anonymous, so it's possible for pedos to use us to find prestasia, but I'm pretty sure we fucking hate kiddy diddlers and use that to fuel our homo/trans/polycule/degenerate phobias...

That only makes sense if you live in bizarro world and use very selective exerpts.