He generally shows most of the signs of the misinformation accounts:
- Wants to repeatedly tell basically the same narrative and nothing else
- Narrative is fundamentally false
- Not interested in any kind of conversation or in learning that what he’s posting is backwards from the values he claims to profess
I also suspect that it’s not a coincidence that this is happening just as the Elon Musks of the world are ramping up attacks on Wikipedia, specially because it is a force for truth in the world that’s less corruptible than a lot of the others, and tends to fight back legally if someone tries to interfere with the free speech or safety of its editors.
Anyway, YSK. I reported him as misinformation, but who knows if that will lead to any result.
Edit: Number of people real salty that I’m talking about this: Lots
I proactively remove disinfo accounts from piefed.social. Banned.
strongly recommend you look into Phillip’s own activity: habitually stalking users, accusing them of spreading misinformation, and hiding their true intentions. his presence is toxic as fuck, and I don’t trust their “analysis” one iota.
I think directly accusing people of spreading misinformation, explaining why, and letting them defend themselves if they want to, is a pretty good activity to do. Mostly, I only do it when something really annoys me, like for example someone claiming a free encyclopedia project for the internet is supporting genocide, kowtowing to fascist regimes, and many of their editors are quitting because it isn’t even safe to contribute to the project because they will dox you whenever asked.
this is not the first time you have made spurious accusations of spreading misinformation. it’s toxic as fuck. I wish you’d just get out of the fediverse instead of launching new instances when people start to ban your account.
Ah yes, spurious. For my part, I deeply regret that I accused him of being a genocidal cult, and posted an article that was all mad about how unreasonable it was that he was was attacking ANI and other governments, like Israel and Donald Trump, to the point that a court had to sanction him for it, and then later another different article about how unreasonable it was that he was kowtowing to ANI by doing what they court-ordered him to do, after some negotiation to make sure it didn’t negatively impact his allies, while wholly misrepresenting the terms of that court order and saying that “many” of his allies were abandoning him.
That would be almost as if I didn’t care at all about the factual consistency of what I was saying, and was just trying to attack him with anything to hand, for whatever bizarre reasons of my own. That would be crazy, man. It would be toxic as fuck.
it’s possible he’s wrong and you’re still toxic. by pigeon holing him with musk you are creating a perception that has no basis in anything they’ve said.
you need to stop “researching” fediverse users.
just fucking stop.
What I’m accusing him is not at all just being “wrong.” Anyone can be wrong, myself included. The accusation I’m making is that he simply doesn’t care about the truth, and is willing to say even diametrically opposed factual statements as long as they both sound bad for Wikipedia. I think we should keep that off the network, or at least talk about it when it happens. That’s not toxic. That is being interested in the truth.
What do you mean when you say “researching”? What do you mean when you say I’m pigeon holing him with Musk? I never said anything about Elon Musk at all, that I remember.
it’s in the op.
just stop.
So, you don’t have a reason, just “shut up shut up shut up.” Okay, sounds good. If you have counterarguments that are not some kind of ad hominem, you’re welcome to post them.
So are you the same person as the linuxsucks and Wikipedia accounts?
Because that’s the vibe I’m getting from your posting.
Tbh I think that the Linux sucks guy is a different person
They’re the only 3 accounts trying to push that it’s brigading and needs to be shut down.
Plus they’re so heavily invested into this thread to defend the accused and attack OP.
That all just seems hella sus to me.
Agreed. A lot of the things they’re accusing me of overlap with things that can get me banned, and they all turned incredibly vocal about what a bum I am at about the same time. The “wikipedia sucks” guy has accused me of “stochastically” causing him to get death threats, apparently, by making this post.
They’ve all got a right to say all that stuff, of course, and I’m not sure it is productive to try to guess whether they are all the same person or are all saying the same bizarre things all at the same time for some other coordinated reason. I think my point has pretty much been made now, in terms of people seeing this post and being able to comment and read if they want to, at this point. I think their goal at this point is to try to push a narrative that I am “toxic as fuck” and did some various outlandish things and need to be banned or defederated, hoping that by sheer repetition it’ll start to take hold.
do you think that because it’s explicitly what I’ve been saying?
false dichotomy.
I’m not saying it has to be one or the other of those things. If I’d said “or” instead of “or are,” it would be a dichotomy.
this is nonsense.
Was gonna say that I didn’t see madthumbs in the thread, but his comment was right at the bottom, mentioned smt about cults and protecting smt. Given that’s his only comment on the thread he still seems like a separate person.
no. but your research is about as good as philips
Your research into the research of Phillip and this other internet stranger is toxic as fuck bro.
having seen them repeatedly target other users, spin up new instances, and keep on doing it, I have no compunction about calling this shit out