Slashdot Mirror
Top US Government Computers Linked to Revenge-Porn Site (thedailybeast.com)
Joseph Cox, reporting for The Daily Beast: Data obtained by a security analyst and shared with The Daily Beast reveals the behind-the-scenes of the epicenter of revenge porn: a notorious image board called Anon-IB, where users constantly upload non-consensual imagery, comment on it, and trade nudes like baseball cards. The data shows Anon-IB users connecting from U.S. Senate, Navy, and other government computers, including the Executive Office of the President, even as senators push for a bill that would further combat the practice, and after the military's own recent revenge-porn crisis. "Wow tig ol bitties. You have any nudes to share?" someone wrote in November, underneath a photo of a woman who apparently works in D.C., while connecting from an IP address registered to the U.S. Senate.
Anon-IB is a free-to-use message board where users post images, typically of women, and which is split into various genre or location sections. Some parts are focused on countries, while U.S. sections may narrow down to a state. Many users pursue so-called wins, which are nude or explicit photos, and may egg each other on to share more images. Anon-IB was also intertwined with a 2014 breach of celebrity nudes referred to as The Fappening. "Looking for wins of [redacted]. She used to send nudes to my friend all of the time. Would love to see some more," someone connecting from the U.S. Senate IP address wrote last August.
Anon-IB is a free-to-use message board where users post images, typically of women, and which is split into various genre or location sections. Some parts are focused on countries, while U.S. sections may narrow down to a state. Many users pursue so-called wins, which are nude or explicit photos, and may egg each other on to share more images. Anon-IB was also intertwined with a 2014 breach of celebrity nudes referred to as The Fappening. "Looking for wins of [redacted]. She used to send nudes to my friend all of the time. Would love to see some more," someone connecting from the U.S. Senate IP address wrote last August.
Project Veritas just released a new story about how twitter bans people who have opinions they don't like.
Basically, any message deemed "offensive" can be attenuated in various ways, but of course being pro-Trump is claimed to be offensive by some so it becomes politically partisan.
I don't know why any company, or any person, would attempt to limit someone else's expression of ideas. It's very clear that companies who do that hurt their own bottom line, there are numerous examples in the past year. So long as the expression isn't explicitly against the law (notably threats and kiddie porn), why bother?
Any methods to limit offense should apply to the listener, not the speaker. If the company wants to give the listener the ability to mute ideas, phrases, or people they don't like, then that's fine. The speaker can still have their message, and the old saw "but no one's obliged to listen to you" still applies.
Facebook, Google, Twitter... all the big players have an idea of what "incorrect behaviour" is, and want to enforce their vision on everyone.
It's ill-advised, badly implemented, and financially a mistake.
And for the record, Gab.ai is the new twitter that does just that: if you don't like the tone of what people say, you can mute people or words or phrases you don't like.
Why do people even do that? I thought we went over this in grade school: freedom of speech is a right.