Remix.run Logo
mrguyorama 4 hours ago

>In emails sent to Patokallio after the DDoS began, “Nora” from Archive.today threatened to create a public association between Patokallio’s name and AI porn and to create a gay dating app with Patokallio’s name.

Oh good. That's definitely a reasonable thing to do or think.

The raw sociopathy of some people. Getting doxxed isn't good, but this response is unhinged.

oytis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I mean, the admin of archive.today might face jail time if deanonymised, kind of understandable he's nervous. Meanwhile for Patokallio it's just curiosity and clicks

jMyles 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a reminder how fragile and tenuous are the connections between our browser/client outlays, our societal perceptions of online norms, and our laws.

We live at a moment where it's trivially easy to frame possession of an unsavory (or even illegal) number on another person's storage media, without that person even realizing (and possibly, with some WebRTC craftiness and social engineering, even get them to pass on the taboo payload to others).

ouhamouch 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That was private negotiations, btw, not public statements.

In response to J.P's blog already framed AT as project grown from a carding forum + pushed his speculations onto ArsTechnica, whose parent company just destroyed 12ft and is on to a new victim. The story is full of untold conflicts of interests covered with soap opera around DDoS.

MBCook 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why does it matter it was a private communications?

It’s still a threat isn’t it?

ouhamouch 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

They negotiate extent of damage one party can cause to another, and AT did not threat with anything uglier than JP already had done to AT.

And, in their private communication, JP _first_ started with threats like "do so and so and keep caml or else ...".

Received adequate threats in response, started playing a victim.

Yossarrian22 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you elaborate on your point?

ouhamouch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The fight is not about where it is shown and not about what, not about "links in Wikipedia", but about whether News Inc will be able to kill AT, as they did with 12FT.

Yossarrian22 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What is News Inc? Are they a funder of Wikipedia(I think Wikipedia didn’t have a parent company so they’re not owners)?

ouhamouch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They are owner of ArsTechnica which wrote 3rd (or 4th?) article on AT in a row painting it in certain colors.

The article about FBI subpoena that pulled J.P's speculations out of the closet was also in ArsTechnica and by the same author, and that same article explicitly mentioned how they are happy with 12ft down

Yossarrian22 2 hours ago | parent [-]

… Ars is owned by Conde Nast?

an hour ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
ouhamouch 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

from the Ars article:

--- US publishers have been fighting web services designed to bypass paywalls. In July, the News/Media Alliance said it secured the takedown of paywall-bypass website 12ft.io. “Following the News/Media Alliance’s efforts, the webhost promptly locked 12ft.io on Monday, July 14th,” the group said. (Ars Technica owner Condé Nast is a member of the alliance.) ---