There will always be the "ones" that come with their victim blaming...

It's not "victim blaming" to point out that we lack sufficient information to really know who the victim even is, or if there's one at all. Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.

(My bet is that Anthropic's automated systems erred, but the author's flamboyant manner of writing (particularly the way he keeps making a big deal out of an error message calling him an organization, turning it into a recurring bit where he calls himself that) did raise my eyebrow. It reminded me of the faux outrage some people sometimes use to distract people from something else.)

▲

ffsm8 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Skip to the end of the article.

He says himself that this is a guess and provides the "missing" information if you are actually interested in it.

▲

mikkupikku 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I read it, and it's not enough to make a judgement either way. For all we know none of this had anything to do with his ban and he was banned for something he did the day before. There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation, where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.

I am not saying that the author was in the wrong and deserved to be banned. I'm saying that neither I nor you can know for sure.

▲

exe34 5 hours ago | parent [-]

we don't know your true motivations for making this series of posts and doubling down - and yet we give you the benefit of the doubt.

	▲	mikkupikku 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Asserting that somebody is "victim blaming" isn't giving somebody the benifit of the doubt, and in the context of a scenario were few if any relevant facts are known reveals a very credulous mindset.