Cobalt Dawg

This is disgusting

Yes, this probably made up story is totes disgusting.

https://lulz.net/furi/res/3506664.html … Yes, this probably made up story. Dumb antifa disturbing a dead imageboard! The ending tho...

It's literally a coin flip if an OP or any given poster is a troll or not. Legit, why do you chan posters always seem to take anonymous unverified posts seriously? Does the word integrity mean jack squat?

Did you not read what I wrote IN THE POST? "Remember to consider the source. I don't trust anonymous sources, but if this is true, this could have huge implications." I never said that I trust it as all factual, just that this is what's being implied.

"I don't trust this source, but I'm going to dishonestly push it onto my audience either way."

How am I 'dishonestly pushing' this? I said RIGHT in the text "I DONT TRUST ANONYMOUS SOURCES. CONSIDER THE SOURCE" Its right there, dude.

Why push a source you don't trust if not to engender people into a narrative? If you don't trust a source, don't publish it. Would the police act to arrest a suspect they have no evidence for yet?

Whine all you want, it's a private website and reasons don't matter. Suck eggs and go look at more kids.

In a fair and just system, reasons ALWAYS matter. Always.

I don't even want to hear complaints about what's "fair and just" from somebody who's a part of a group that has time and time again abused Twitter's report system to get people unjustly banned

I know this could be false because of the anonymous nature, but with FAs silence, id assume the worst. The stuff from those threads is so toxic... Like FA is just a social site, it used to be open for everyone. Now it's a hunting ground? Why? Who does it benefit?...

Why do people have to inject their own feelings, orientation, beliefs, political party, etc into everything they do? Why not let other. People have their own opinions and create a comfortable safe place for EVERYONE. The only thing they needed to ban was the...

Hate, abuse, etc by the users themselves. *regardless of name or political standing* if a groups purpose is to spread hate then yes ban that group too, but judged as an individual, not all in the group. Judge people by their actions, not their associations.

The fact is that they ARE monitoring people for off-site activities, anyone they dislike or "suspect". Upon the flimsiest reason they will ban these people. If you're going to run a social media platform, you ban people for what they do ON the website, not off-site.

Monitoring off-site behaviour os only done to match up posts and such on FA. If a cub pic on FA is not labeled as cub, but is on their Inkbunny and Pixiv, that closes the grey area that would normally allow said art. Same goes for other posts and journals. Only to connect dots.

Sure it can start there, but it wont end there. Thats generally why its not typically allowed in site moderation. What happens on the site is and SHOULD be as far as the rules go. This is what is known as 'administrative overreach'

It's not there fault the site has "birds" that speak. Lol What happens off site, stays off site, unless its found to prove certain grounds for being banned or deleted. That is in the rules. Again, only if it can connect the dots.

The questions I want answered are these: Who gets to define these words and what are those working definitions? For something as important and possibly legal as CoC, these things need to be objectively written and defined.