Brazilian ISPs Told To Block YouTube Until Google Shuts It Down
from the proxy-servers,-anyone? dept
Following the Brazilian court order last week demanding Google shut down YouTube because of a racy video involving a well-known model having sex on the beach, a Brazilian ISP has stepped up to block all access to YouTube. The judge's order did note that ISPs should block the site until Google either takes it down or can guarantee that the video in question will no longer be available -- but so far it appears that only this one ISP has complied. This whole thing seems particularly pointless. All of the legal wrangling over the video has only made it much more popular around the world -- and there are plenty of other sites showing it, and for every site that the Brazilian government decides to shut down or that a Brazilian ISP tries to block, plenty of others will show up. Trying to ban it completely only gives it that much more attention and guarantees that many more people will see it. In the meantime, all the customers of this particular ISP (Brasil Telecom) will get pissed off that their ISP is blocking all of the perfectly legitimate videos on YouTube on the chance that someone might upload yet another copy of the sex video (which YouTube has quickly been removing every time it's been added). This ruling doesn't protect anyone, guarantees more people will see the video and annoys plenty of legitimate users. It's hard to see how that makes any sense for anyone.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Wilson on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 8:33pm
Actually, another large ISP (Telefonica) is also blocking access and redirecting users to a page where it claims that access is blocked due to a judicial order.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What the heck? by Russell Williams on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 8:43pm
What is this "a well know model" carp? You don't know her/his name? What about a link? Is it being blocked? Yeah, right...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
/falls our of chair laughing by Bumbling old fool on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 8:58pm
Apparently Brazil has never heard of the Streisand effect.
No, Russell, its not a fake, its been all over the place this past week or so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Brent on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 9:31pm
Its not even that racy, just some chick making out on the beach.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Do we really want freedom? by dorpus on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 9:43pm
Americans say they want "freedom" when it benefits them. In East Asia, a serious social problem is emerging in the form of cyber-hooliganism. When mobs of netters decide they don't like someone, they tear him/her to shreds -- posting pictures of them online, their telephone numbers, employers, bank account numbers, medical records, lists of acquaintances. When posted anonymously, it becomes impossible to track down the offenders. Drive-by stalkers constantly take pictures of them, and some victims have been driven to suicide.
Americans say that "information wants to be free" -- but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 9:48pm
And Brazil, of all places. Ignore it unless the rest of the world can see it...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Privacy? by Yep thats me on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 10:02pm
If you don't want a video of you having sex on the beach all over the net then don't have sex on the beach...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Only one thing can be done about this; by Grandfather Time on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 10:04pm
laugh... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
cool! by Whateva on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 10:50pm
I had NO idea that such a video ever existed, or who this model is. But not I'm going to go find it, figure out who this person is, and ALWAYS remember her as the bitch who had sex in a public place and then thought she had any right to privacy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: cool! by dorpus on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:17pm
Will you remember yourself as the vain fellow who was fascinated by it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Huh????? by jay on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:31pm
I'm sitting here reading this, I wonder if this is comic relief? All I can say......LONG LIVE YOU TUBE!!!!
I don't watch sex vedios such as the one in question, but I don't think people feel threathened by a court order in Brazil-and it won't solve anything either.
LONG LIVE YOU TUBE!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Huh????? by dorpus on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:43pm
If someone who doesn't like you took a video of you going to the bathroom, and thousands of copies showed up on youtube and it became a world sensation, how would you feel?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Huh????? by Anonymous Coward on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:49pm
Dorpus at his teenage best, trolling again.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh????? by dorpus on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:55pm
What if you can't figure out who took this video, and your personal information started showing up online? What if your employer gets flooded by phone calls from perverts with a bathroom fetish, people found copies of your medical records, personal history, your social security number? Every time you step outside, strangers take pictures of you, your workplace receives bomb threats, police receive false accusations against you and obtain a search warrant to come in and take your belongings away?
This is not absurd either, this stuff is happening to lots of people in East Asia when cyber-mobs decide to bully someone at random.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Huh????? by Wacko on Jan 8th, 2007 @ 11:56pm
Dorpus, I'd suggest chillin on the subject. Every actor or actress here in the states has gone through something like this in other countries, being photographed by people from those countries and put on the web, so why is it that just because the person isn't from the US they have more of a right to privacy? I'm not advocating what is being done, I'm just saying that if you're gonna be willing to take your cloths off or what ever it was that she did in public, someone is gonna be bound to see, and if you're unlucky enough to get caught, just suck it up cause it was your fault in the first place for doing it in a public place. Also you're comment about taking a video of you going to the bathroom, well if the person is doing it in public they're a dumb ass anyway, but if they're doing it at home that's another story since no one should be able to see them there, but on the beach thats another storry...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh????? by dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 12:02am
What if someone takes a video of you going to a public bathroom at some store with security cameras? They can track down who you are from taking pictures of you entering your car. They could upload a doctored video online showing you doing bad things in the bathroom. Outraged "activists" then proceed to ruin your reputation online, setting up fake "blogs" written by you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
all publicity by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 12:27am
Good one Dorpus, a well made point.
"When mobs of netters decide they don't like someone, they tear him/her to shreds -- posting pictures of them online, their telephone numbers, employers, bank account numbers, medical records, lists of acquaintances."
The "Western" approach to this which you can hear a thousand times a day on Slashdot is "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". They aren't torn to shreds as you put it, so much as they tear themselves to shreds in some kind of guilty fit of shame.
"When posted anonymously, it becomes impossible to track down the offenders. Drive-by stalkers constantly take pictures of them, and some victims have been driven to suicide."
But you can't assert both, it's symmetrical. If A can expose B then B can expose A. If that is not the case then you are describing a power abuse, not a social phenomenon. The American mind is much more "fuck you", to it's enormous credit such actions are far more likely to result in homocide than suicide and through that MAD enshrined in 2nd amendment thinking oddly enough, symmetrical respect, that order is maintained.
Would you, given the means and opportunity, post the intimate details of a stranger on the net? I would not. And not because I fear the law of libel . Foremost I would not do it because I think it is unethical and I hold myself to high moral standards, but second on that list is the fact that I would spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder for what is rightfully and justifiably coming to me, probably 10 weeks of hospital food.
"Americans say that "information wants to be free" -- but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?"
It's not a case of "wanting" to be free. That personification usually alludes to the wishes of the person making the statement as in "I want that information to be free". Rather it is that information tends towards freedom, in an entropic fashion the genie cannot be returned to the bottle.
However, this case involves celebrities who actively seek publicity. If it were a video of J Random Doe and his partner nobody would give a flying fuck (hmm, I'm still having trouble getting that second life video out of my brain).
Lastly, the vultures are already feeding. But they are not the hysterical masses. They are there every time you visit the supermarket and pay by credit card, they are lurking behind the guise of "security" companies. If you think that information harvested under the auspices of legality is contained you are very naive. The limiting condition is simply this; the lives of most people, even the greatest freaks, are increadibly boring and dull.
Do I care that Mrs Miggins of Arcacia Avenue, Fulchester is into S&M with her husband? Sorry, no, I have a life of my own to get on with however shallow it may be.
As for this video, it only amused me because I thought that little twunt Ronaldo was in it (still grieving from the world cup here), but I couldn't give a monkeys anus what his ex bird is up to, who is she again? Oh that's right - some nonentity that wants to get famous by having a video of her posted on the internet and having her daddy presure the government to remove it. It's just a publicity stunt like that other silly bint Paris Hilton.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: all publicity by dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 12:44am
The "Western" approach to this which you can hear a thousand times a day on Slashdot is "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". They aren't torn to shreds as you put it, so much as they tear themselves to shreds in some kind of guilty fit of shame.
What if cyber-bullies invent accusations? How do you prove your innocence?
But you can't assert both, it's symmetrical. If A can expose B then B can expose A.
How so? Any stranger can surreptitiously take pictures of you with a camera, without you realizing it. They can upload the pictures (altered to show you commiting crimes) from public terminals, where tracking down is impossible.
Do I care that Mrs Miggins of Arcacia Avenue, Fulchester is into S&M with her husband? Sorry, no, I have a life of my own to get on with however shallow it may be.
No, but what if somebody created a sensational story about Mrs. Miggins that is hard to ignore?
The American mind is much more "fuck you", to it's enormous credit such actions are far more likely to result in homocide than suicide and through that MAD enshrined in 2nd amendment thinking oddly enough, symmetrical respect, that order is maintained.
What if dozens, hundreds of people decide to destroy your reputation, so it is not possible to track them down?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by lillyliver on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 1:28am
I think a person forfeits his right to privacy when he acts in public. If you do it in public, don't be mad when someone sees you. If you don't want someone to see you, do it in private. Apparently they wanted the "risk of getting caught" to add a little spice. I guess they got what they wanted.
I don't know what is so special about this case. Its not like this is the first time something like this has happened.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: all publicity by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 1:49am
"What if cyber-bullies invent accusations? How do you prove your innocence?"
You don't. You ignore it like an adult.
Example: Dorpus is a crack addict.
Do you care? Honestly? (I sincerely hope you don't). Tomorrow this comment will be flushed off the board into the obscurity of the TechDirt database. In fact, if I were browsing and stumbled upon it I would think... hmm what kind of a prick is "misanthropic humanist" making unsubstantiated accusations about some guy he never met.
"Any stranger can surreptitiously take pictures of you with a camera, without you realizing it."
Anyone could walk up to me in the street and stick a knife in my back. Do I live in constant fear of that? Of course not. Do I think that knives and streets should be banned? Of course not.
"They can upload the pictures (altered to show you commiting crimes) from public terminals, where tracking down is impossible."
That would be defamation and possibly other crimes depending on your juristiction, hence a matter for the police who are rather better than you might think at tracking down these things.
"somebody created a sensational story about Mrs. Miggins"
Same thing here.
"What if dozens, hundreds of people decide to destroy your reputation, so it is not possible to track them down?"
They just increased 100 times the chances of tracking down any one of them to make a very nasty example of.
Having said all that, some people do deserve negative attention. Where that is based on demonstrable truth it is an absolute defence and justification. One should never live ones life in fear that others might lie and gossip about you, nor should one be afraid to point out the crimes of others, just be damn sure you got your facts straight before taking your greivance further.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Video by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 2:07am
Link me to the video, it sounds hot.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I suggest.. by Anonymous Cyber-Mob on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 2:17am
..that we e-attack dorpus.
There is a strong need here for counter-trolling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Need Fair Use Copy on Techdirt by The Missing Link on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 2:20am
C'mon, we don't need excuses about how YouTube quickly pulls the video. When I see links to the STORY about the video, I expect to see links to the VIDEO too. I mean as readers, how can we expect to intelligently comment on it unless we've seen it?
So yeah, pull down one of those "quickly deleted" copies before it gets deleted and host it on Techdirt. I mean, without being able to see it, how do we really know that Brazil doesn't have good reason to be outraged?
:-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
video by matt on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 2:47am
its clear she has sex in the water in the vid, let me find the link for you guys....
ahh here you go! google video link (or search for daniela cicarelli)
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D- 7908230727441213427%26q%3DDaniela%2BCicarelli&docid=-7908230727441213427&ev=v&esrc=sr2&a mp;usg=AL29H2091RAcXLCT_P-b6VMm9SFFe10eMg
in addition, I guess brazil doesn't support freedom of speech? also too bad the actor in question doesn't realize just how bad the streisand effect is taking place, as well.
I'm thinking this is like how paris hilton's video "slipped" into the public to get her into popularity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 3:32am
You can find links to the video on YouTube still, just not the real video, and you could probably find it just by googling some key words. You can hardly tell they are doing anything anyway because it's happening out in the ocean, both of their lower halfs are covered by water, and the only indication you have is her wrapped around him moving up and down and a flash of the guys member after their done. It's not like any of the American sex tapes that have been publicised to death.
If these guys want to have sex in public (and by public I mean outside their homes in a place where it is socially acceptable for other people to be [ie not a bathroom stall]) then they run the risk of getting caught or having the acted recorded. Anytime anyone does something in public it is open to this type of thing.
Comparing this to invasions of privicy (shower photos, bathroom stall photos, etc) doesn't make sense because these people were out in the open, no walls around them, and it's not like they are going to go off and kill themselves (they are going to suck it up and get on with their lives). You have to protect your private information by not making it public, plain and simple.
Brazil is just throwing a hissy fit over this and just needs to grow up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Model by Luis Alonso on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 3:41am
The model name is Daniela Cicarelli, I´m brazilian, and agree, this shit only draw more atention to the video and pisses me off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Do we really want freedom? by EdB on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 4:15am
You're a retard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by EdB on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 4:28am
http://www.porkolt.com/other/daniela+cicarelli/voyeur/beach/spain/brasileira/ronaldo/daniela-cicarel lis-beach-sex-6166.html might be it, but I hope not. It is EXTREMELY tame. It is remotely possible that the people in the water at the end of the video are having sex, but you have to really decide that they are.
Oh I had to open internet exploder to watch it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Link by 40 on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 4:33am
Here's a link to the video:
NSFW!
NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
http://www.medicinefilms.com/digs/187110/
NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
NSFW!
And dorpus is crazy.
He's saying that nobody should be able to take pictures of what they do in public because there are criminals who could do bad things.
We should ban everything then because anything can be used in a crime! NO MORE COMPUTERS CAUSE CRIMINALS USE THEM!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Publicity Stunt by Enrico Suarve on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 5:00am
Possibly the best publicity stunt this tart has ever made - be honest - who had heard of Daniele whateverhernameis before this?
The video looks suspiciously well filmed from the camera angles in it and the bit at the end - well in all honesty it’s that grainy it could be anyone
The bit before that is actually mainly tasteful with no nudity to the point that it’s tamer than most perfume ads
Bear in mind this is a woman who models bikinis for a living and you have to wonder why she is so 'outraged' (bearing in mind that if the editing is to believed they were screwing in the water of a public beach in plain site of other beach goers)
My guess - she felt her career was flagging and she needed to do something about it. She got a filmmaker to record a vaguely erotic film which wouldn't even get an age 15 rating in the UK, then bribed a judge to get it banned possibly promising him a share of the profits of her next clothing/perfume/celebrity product line
OK as conspiracy theories go it's not huge but it will be interesting to watch her career over the next few months...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 5:22am
HOLY SHIT DORPUS! GET A FUCKING LIFE! YOU POST WAY TOO MUCH BULLSHIT ON THIS SITE!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 5:48am
All ISP's in Brazil need to worry about their own networks sending the mass amounts of spam they do before they worry about what video may be coming into their network.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Publicity Stunt by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 5:55am
Aggre 100%. This has Attention Whore written all over it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by DorpusCorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:00am
I am dorpus and i have sex with the undead! on TV! I eat macaroni without regard for the legal ramifications of macaroni!
I had sex with Chelsea Clinton at walmart and they took pictures of it and sold those pictures to the yakuza mobs in japan. Then these chinese hax0rs melted my blog servar with their l33tness and I was forced to know that I wasnt really that important to all of those people anyways.... sigh.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:03am
hey dorpus, why would you let somebody who doesn't like you tape you going to the bathroom?
I think the last thing anyone wants to see online is my fat white pasty self dropping the kids off at the pool..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Chill out Dorkus by Rampage on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:07am
Hey dorphus you need to chill out. If people wanna make video of them doing it in public then go oops its up on you tube thats fine by me. Thats the beauty of living in this world. Anything goes. Now if some one took pictures of me going to the bathroom well thats just grose and i would make it my no.1 prioity to humiliate them like send hookers to his house when his wife and him are together :D. Thats just how i am
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:20am
hey dorpus, why would you let somebody who doesn't like you tape you going to the bathroom?
Every time you go to the bathroom, do you make sure there are no pinhole cameras in the walls or ceiling?
I think the last thing anyone wants to see online is my fat white pasty self dropping the kids off at the pool.
Will your neighbors, police department be nonchalant if they found a photo of you online with naked children in the pool?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Do we really want freedom? by YouKnowNothing on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:49am
Um...and this relates to the story in question how?
Jeez dorpus, your trolling attempts used to be quite creative and even amusing at times. What happened to your 'A' game? Please, we all miss it so much.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh????? by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 6:52am
If only they would decide to bully you. Now that would be a chuckle wouldn't it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Huh????? by YouKnowNothing on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 7:00am
It's called "reasonable expectation of privacy." You have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're taking a whizz at home. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're having sex on a public beach.
Your trolling has suffered a dramatic decline in entertainmaent value lately. We're all getting worried about you.
If the fastball has dropped some velocity, it's time to develop a new pitch, or be relegated to mop-up duty.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
dorpus, yer an idiot by kraco on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 7:07am
There are only 2 ways anyone is getting video of you using the bathroom:
1. You're doing it out in the open, in plain view of public areas
2. They're illegally taping you in a bathroom. Don't start in about security cameras. There aren't cameras in store bathrooms -- that's illegal.
In fact, in most areas it's illegal to even have the bathroom door in view of a security camera. That's why most retailers have their bathrooms back in a hallway or around a corner. It keeps the doors out of the camera's range.
This model is doing her thing out in public. Sure, she didn't know it was being taped, but she damn well knew it COULD be. If you decide to take a big dump on the beach and it's taped, too damn bad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So, can we just get one thing straight... by Peet McKimmie on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 7:34am
...sex in public is a bad thing? Who knew?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hey....get a clue by not dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 7:41am
dorpus....you say how would i feel if i was taped in the bathroom, or having sex in my own home. well of coure i'd be mad. why? because that's my personal space. if i was taped at a club doing a funny dance, or prancing around on a beach half clothed and taped, i'd still be upset, but would have no legal action to do anything (unless there were strict no camera or a gauranted privacy area enacted). you want to compare apples to carburators with regards to how well they can walk. It just doesn't work. get a clue.
next, sure, people can take pictures of me, then photoshop them, or upload them to the internet. and there'd be no way to track them? i don't think so. you can get the ip addy of the uploading hoast, and track that back to a user (it may be spoofed or whatever, but it becomes a bit more challenging, but still the fact remains) maybe the offender was really good, and the cops had more important issues to deal with. it's no different than unsolved rapes/murders/thefts/robberies. you just can't catch everyone. sure it's bad and hurts you, but what else can you do but move on?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here we go, trying to legislate morality again... by Darrell Young on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:00am
This never works. Its is odd, though, that of all Countries that would consider something like this, Brazil would step up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Concerned on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:11am
Dorpus, dude, you need help
Really I mean it, much as I hate the american shrink thing you need one. Venting here probably has its uses as a release valve, but I don't think the people on this site are qualified to give you the counseling you so obviously require
You've turned most of your posts into bathroom photos, screwing in stalls and abusing children in swimming pools
Thats not healthy
Freudian psycology would hint at you having had difficulties in the toilet training phase of your life (possibly an overbearing mother a traumatic experience or similar?). This can lead to an anally retentive or perverse personality in later life. Hitler probably had the same problem (well he had lots but this was probably one of them)
I'm not saying your going to become Hitler but wouldn't the world be better if he'd seen a shrink?
Dude - for your own good, go
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh????? by Mike C. on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:30am
Better yet, what if Dorpus left and stopped posting forever..... oh wait... that's a good thing... nevermind.. :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:32am
Hey you c**ts, leave Dorpus alone. He speaks his mind and he speaks it freely and that's just healthy and fine.
You wanna bully someone with faux psychobable?
You wanna go argumentum ad hominem? Try me.
I am quite sure Dorpus can defend himself, but that's my 2c on the matter.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Concerned on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:39am
Hi Dorpus ;0)
you're cute when you're angry ;0)
particularly when you play dress up......
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Irony? by The infamous Joe on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 8:58am
The ironic thing is that if enough people jump in and pick on dorpus, they'd be proving his inital point, wouldn't they?
Personally, I think he does less of speaking his mind and more of being a troll, but what do I know?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Irony? by Bumbling old fool on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 9:04am
The ironic thing is that if enough people jump in and pick on dorpus, they'd be proving his inital point, wouldn't they?
No, the ironic thing is that they WERE doing it to prove dorpus's point, just as dorpus set them up to do, but mishum failed to notice that and actually tried to defend dorpus.
Sadly yes, dorpus's goal here is to troll, and not speak his mind. To that end, he's sometimes effective, but usually just looks like a jackass.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Irony? by The infamous Joe on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 9:12am
I dunno, people jump all over the kid even when his point isn't about cyber-mob attacks.
I think you just assumed they were doing it to prove his point, and Humanist saw it for what it was and decided that trolls need love too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Irony? by Concerned on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 9:18am
Sorry BOF and yup Joe
Hate to break it to you BOF but I'm having a bad day, Dorpus's trolling on these posts was pissing me off so yeah I was going for the wind-up mileage not for the irony
So I'm not a nice person - sue me, sorry
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Irony? not really by dorpus attacker on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 9:25am
see, we don't know dorpus. we don't post his personal info. we don't post photos/videos of him doing "priavte" things. we don't alter photos/videos for humiliation.
we get on his case because he trolls here. we haven't proven his point. we haven't "changed" his life. we haven't changed how others feel/think about him. he does that himself. we all just express our views, llike he expresses his.
not damaging.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 9:56am
uh.. naked children? dropping the kids off at the pool is a term for making poopy in the toilet.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
/falls out of chair laughing again by Bumbling old fool on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:08am
No really, I didnt say you were INTENTIONALLY proving dorpus right. I said he SET YOU UP FOR IT.
You were a victim of his trolling, and you didnt even notice it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
For example by dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:10am
A 4-year-old girl with a rare heart condition needed surgery, so her parents solicited donations through the media. Cyber-hooligans pounced on the opportunity to accuse her parents of faking the illness, posting their phone numbers and insurance records online, medical records, photos of their house, license plates, names of relatives and family friends. Thousands of posters did this anonymously, using foreign hosting services, bypassing legality issues. The family's life became a living hell, and in this case the girl did manage to get surgery, but others before her have died from similar attacks.
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/wadai/kunrin/news/20070101ddm001040002000c.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Battle Cry by dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:14am
Cyber-Hooligans have developed their own culture and vocabulary. Their code word for "feeding frenzy!!!" is
キタ－－－（゜∀゜）－－－！！！！
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Outdoor f**king by Kitty on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:19am
Here's a relevant song:
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/first-of-may
Birds do it, bees do it, lets do it,
Lets try to revamp our careers by having sex on the beach!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:43am
Actually BOF was right /sheepish smile, I missed the irony and wanted to give Concerned a bitchslap for that rather unsporting tirade. Ah, a trolls lot is not a happy one.
Good job we're all such good friends here.
/group hug ??
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
@ #54 by misanthropic humanist on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 10:49am
Unfortunately that link won't load for me. But if true that's disgusting. Those sad little bitter twisted people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
sick kid attack by not dorpus on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 11:17am
well, it's sad that people will do that to people. and it's sad that people will use illness to extort money out of bleeding hearts.
however, by opening yourself to the public eye, you run the risk of getting burned. it's a choice that has to be made. display private information for the world to see, someone will misconstrue it.
the fact of the matter is that once you put information in the public domain, it is open to abuse.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: LOL by Concerned on Jan 9th, 2007 @ 12:02pm
Ah maybe your right - but serves the little boy who cried Troll right
Maybe this time it wasn't out and out trolling, consider me a pissed off villager in the above twisted metaphor
As for unsporting on that note I disagree - troll away in the public domain and expect the odd adverse response ;0)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
block google for life by kristy yamoo on Jan 21st, 2007 @ 2:14pm
please block google because it has bad things for my children and rude not advisible for kids under 10 years old like relly bad things
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Link by Steve0 on Mar 10th, 2007 @ 7:56pm
Why don't people just get around these content filter with free sites like these:
bypass.thezerogroup.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Battle Cry by Anonymous Coward on Jun 11th, 2007 @ 11:15pm
fcxxz dxs xccf zx c
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment