(The quickest way to register)

Forum

  1. User picture
    • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
    • 04:06:43 PM UTC

    AnonTalk's scorecard unfairly low

    If you look at the scorecard for AnonTalk.com, it's dark red, and the comments indicate the general mindset of the ratings.
    http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/anontalk.com

    AnonTalk is a free, anonymous discussion board, dedicated to free speech. Anyone can say absolutely anything. Some of the topics can be a little extreme, but nothing on the site is illegal! People seem to think that their morals are everyone's morals, and will rate accordingly.

    If you see the site's Legal page, it says:

    This service/Web site is 100% legal to use and host in all even remotely sane jurisdictions. Its servers have never and will never do evil things, such as sending, relaying or initiating (any kind of) spam or participating in any way in any kind of attack. ... If you don't like controversial topics being discussed, just don't visit this Web site instead of trying to ruin things for those of us who want to talk about them. All you will accomplish is some wasted time and making us even more convinced that this place is very important and must live on at any cost. Do everyone a favour and go create some beautiful art or something else creative instead, or, better yet, start hanging here and create/contribute in topics that interest you.

    The comments page is filled with lies and general slander against the website. It would be far too much effort to contact every single one of them individually, but I'll cover the majority here.

    tobias104: Many Pedophiles, performs Denial of Service attacks on other websites.
    The website is about free speech, this includes everyone. Unless vital, I'm not going to include any part of future comments that references the site's content, unless absolutely vital. The site has never outright initiated a DDoS attack anyone, or any site.

    zipdavidson: has been known to redirect users to malicious pages containing viruses, hosted off a home computer, does NOT respect privacy in any way, known to spam other popular imageboard websites, and known to plan/carry out DDoS attacks.
    Banned users now get redirected to an on-site page that explains that they're banned, and why they're banned. Nothing else. Likewise, I won't be including this particular complaint any more unless vital. It is one of the most privacy-loving sites on the internet; your identities are completely anonymous! If you become a regular, your IP is never even logged in the first place. It has never initiated spam or DDoS attacks.

    ramoncina: There are links to child pornography sites. Many pedophiles gather in here to exchange this kind of material. Also performs Denial of Service attacks and spams other sites.
    The site is about FREE SPEECH. It does not host any images, videos, files, or anything that may be illegal in any civilized jurisdiction. Has never DDoS'd, has never spammed.

    GrantZ: Crappy privacy. Everyone posting can be easily identified. Regurarilly spams and DDoSes other sites. Avoid it like the pest.
    No one can be easily identified. The most broad any identification gets is a letter in a topic. Has never, etc.

    mskusu: Lots of pedophilic content that is not moderated at all.
    It is, in fact, heavily moderated for post clarity and quality. They seem to think "moderation" applies to forcing ideals on everyone. It is, again, about free speech.

    sorryranga94: Disgusting Pedophile rubbish, AVOID AT ALL COSTS! Enyone involved with this sick site should be banned from the internets.
    Again, they seem to assume everyone has the exact same ethics as them. It is subjective and not actually about the site at all.

    halcy: This website should be considered unsafe in every of the given categories - It meticulously tracks users via IP and cookies, redirects to browser exploit websites, contains links to child porn and horrible, horrible material, and is spammed all over such websites as wikipedia. AVOID if you value your sanity.
    As far as tracking goes, the cookies are some of the least malicious. It only keeps your identity (for the site) and some dashboard settings. Your IP is only attached to posts for spam prevention (it is, by far, a LOT less intrusive than most forum systems), and aren't tracked at all if you become a regular. Not a single page on the site redirects off-site to anywhere but Wikipedia, and off-site news, neither of which are malicious. It is legal, your morals aren't, has never spammed, etc.

    I hope some of the ratings and comments are given a second thought, and the outright slander is reconsidered promptly.

Comments:

  2. User picture
    • MysteryFCM on Tue 25 Aug 2009
    • 05:01:44 PM UTC

    ....

    Hate to break it to you but, whilst I'm all for free speech, if the site is allowing peadophiles and links to such (can't and won't check the site, UK law prevents such if there's so much as a hint of CP or related material), then the site IMHO, should be shut down - this CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be covered under the guise of free speech.

    "The site has never outright initiated a DDoS attack anyone, or any site."

    So they have done so indirectly? And you think this is okay?

    Regards
    Steven Burn
    Ur I.T. Mate Group / hpHosts
    it-mate.co.uk / hosts-file.net
    • User picture
      • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
      • 05:11:13 PM UTC

      ellipsis goes here

      It is allowing anyone to post. It does not contain any illegal links. This site is entirely legal in all jurisdictions, including yours - unless the UK believes in "thought crimes".

      By "directly", I mean that the users have initiated DDoS attacks when other sites started a spam or DDoS raid themselves. I'm not saying it's okay, but the administrator has no means of controlling this. "Directly" refers to the administrator or site itself.
  3. User picture
    • evilfantasy on Tue 25 Aug 2009
    • 05:27:58 PM UTC

    but the administrator has no means of controlling this

    Or does he speak against or try to stop it. He encourages it by doing nothing.

    Respectable sites get respectable ratings. It's that simple.
    • User picture
      • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
      • 05:49:00 PM UTC

      He has spoken out numerous

      He has spoken out numerous times against it. Would you like the links? He discourages it as much as possible, people will do as they do.
  4. User picture
    • amishrabbit on Tue 25 Aug 2009
    • 06:35:45 PM UTC

    There's a screenshot linked

    There's a screenshot linked to this comment:

    http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/anontalk.com/com...

    There appear to be a number of posted topics with subject lines openly relating to pedophilia, and racism and hate speech.

    Yuck. I support your right for your users to say what you want, but I don't feel I can honestly rate the site other than red for the child-related sexual content and racism.
    • User picture
      • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
      • 06:57:31 PM UTC

      Real screenshot

      That screenshot is edited and outdated, it is not an accurate representation of the site as a whole. Here's a real screenshot that I took a few seconds ago:
      http://www.vulomedia.com/images/9431hottopics.png
      (Excuse the darkness, I'm using a different theme)

      Yes, it still contains some topics that you've mentioned, but on the whole, you can see it for what it is. A real, intelligent, anonymous, free-speech discussion board. Racists and pedophiles have opinions too, and whether or not you or me disagree with them does not mean they should be silenced.
      • User picture
        • BobJam (not verified) on Tue 25 Aug 2009
        • 08:13:15 PM UTC

        Irony

        "Racists and pedophiles have opinions too, and whether or not you or me disagree with them does not mean they should be silenced."
        Do you see the irony in that statement?

        WOT users have opinions too!

        And as far as silencing goes, a WOT rating DOES NOT silence any person. If a WOT user CHOOSES (and I'm sure you would endorse "Freedom of Choice") to place trust in a WOT rating rather than your website, can you argue with that?

        Are you applying a double standard? Is it OK for racists and pedophiles to have opinions, but not WOT raters and commenters?

        I'll reiterate . . . WOT does not silence your web site or anyone on it. It merely rates it based on the opinions of WOT raters and commenters. Racists and pedophiles are free to express their opinions on your web site. Would you silence the opinions of WOT?

        A user is free to heed the WOT rating . . . or not.
        • User picture
          • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
          • 08:34:01 PM UTC

          A few points

          First of all: I am not the owner of AnonTalk.com. I'm a user. I just love the site and hate to see it downgraded.

          Secondly: I agree with you 100%, but you misunderstand my purpose for saying that. I am not concerned about what some people may think, as that is the nature of the site. I am concerned about the outright lies of the actions about the site.

          I couldn't care less if it was commented into oblivion by offended users of WOT, but it has innumerable mistruths about the site, and I don't want someone thinking the site was not appropriate because of those reasons. If every user on WOT and then some wants to give it a big red circle, that's fine, but I don't want anyone thinking the site is outright dangerous. It is completely safe.
          • User picture
            • BobJam (not verified) on Tue 25 Aug 2009
            • 09:58:20 PM UTC

            An opinion is a lie?

            "I am concerned about the outright lies of the actions about the site"

            How can an opinion, which is what a comment is . . . or a rating for that matter . . . be a "lie"?

            Granted, some of the comments are stated as "fact", but the discriminating user would know that it is really an opinion.

            So I take it you're trying to "protect" the "undiscriminating" user . . . the one who takes all comments as gospel, without making any judgement for him/her self?

            Arguing that comments are lies when the person making that comment believes it to be true is like arguing religious beliefs . . . an exercise in futility.

            The crux of the issue here is that comments are opinions, not facts.

            If one wants to argue that a comment is untrue (which is impossible since it's an opinion), then one could just as well argue that a green comment is untrue. Arguing either way is absurd. Just make a comment that you believe the red comments are flawed, state why, and be done with it. (And if I recall correctly, that was what was done.) Users are then free to judge either the green or red comments as accurate.

            The fact that the majority of comments are red just means that the majority of the opinions are unfavorable . . . likewise the ratings. Ratings and comments are not intrinsically facts, but only insofar as a user believes them in his/her own judgement.

            You said it yourself in your original post. You referred to a comment as a "mindset". A "mindset" is hardly a fact, except to the person holding that "mindset".

            Example of a fact: There are twelve inches in a foot . . . at least in the USA and on this planet.

            Another example: Black is darker than white.
            • User picture
              • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
              • 10:25:17 PM UTC

              Not what I meant

              I don't mean the comments that give an opinion, I mean the comments that say AnonTalk spams, launches DDoS attacks, hosts child pornography, etc.
      • User picture
        • phantazm on Thu 27 Aug 2009
        • 04:25:25 AM UTC

        The real screenshot

        Q3: "you can see it for what it is. A real, intelligent, anonymous, free-speech discussion board. - www.vulomedia.com/images/9431hottopics.png"

        Your screenshot displays a list of 100 threads. More than 30 of these are about CP, paedophilia, and similar...

        Admittedly, there are other topics as well, like "93: I abuse my dog" or "42: Any gun owners here" or "4: Christians: Who created god?". But almost 1/3 is about CP, that's not a rare exception. Seems more like a very popular theme......

        Q3: "Racists and pedophiles have opinions too..."

        Sure they have, just like nazis, serial killers, Ku Klux Klan, etc have opinions... So what! Claiming 'free speech' forever doesn't mean you're above any morale perspective.

        Yes, I think we "can see it for what it is". Much too clearly now...
        • User picture
          • Q3 on Thu 27 Aug 2009
          • 06:00:18 PM UTC

          Themes

          Do you expect me to lie in response? Yes, pedophilia is a popular theme there, however, it is not the majority of the site by far. I should mention that there is also an "Ostrich Mode", which, if enabled and loaded with a default list, will block 99% of the pedophilia-related topics from the site. If you're interested, I'll show you how in the Dashboard (when the site comes back up.)

          Sure they have, just like nazis, serial killers, Ku Klux Klan, etc have opinions... So what! Claiming 'free speech' forever doesn't mean you're above any morale perspective.
          Alright, let's go with the obvious response here, why are your morals the only ones that matter?

          Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but everyone you listed DOES have their opinions, and they have a right to express them. Racists, pedophiles, sexists, whatever. They obviously don't think they're wrong, now do they? That would be a weird sort of moral paradox. They have a right to debate their opinions just like everyone else. I've even seen a few change their ways. It is free speech, and however sick you may be of hearing me say that, free speech means for everyone.
      • User picture
        • phantazm on Mon 31 Aug 2009
        • 03:02:20 AM UTC

        Quite ironic - yet disgusting

        Quite ironic, WOT doesn't employ a forum filter (at least not a strong version, afaik), that's why we sometimes see weird signatures, and posts that doesn't make much sense. The few cases of spam (post/signature/etc) that I've seen weren't detected by a filter or admins, but by the forum itself...

        However, your forum, Q3, has a strong filter, to delete spam, vandalism, etc. Nevertheless this is your own example of what content could be about, after moderation and filters removed the worst. In your own words: "Here's a real screenshot that I took a few seconds ago": It's a list of 100 topics, but a few examples should suffice:

        10: how do I start having sex with my toddler?
        53: My molestation fantasy
        93: I abuse my dog
        Source: www.vulomedia.com/images/9431hottopics.png

        Are we talking about free speech here?
        No, you dishonour the concept!
        Have you no shame..?
        • User picture
          • Bolatium on Fri 18 Sep 2009
          • 04:03:12 PM UTC

          I'm sorry, but many subjects

          I'm sorry, but many subjects are completely satirical, and you some cannot be taken seriously.
          10: is an article that is re-posted over and over on other message boards, and do not get deleted, primarily because by making such bold statements, it is a modern "Modest Proposal", if you will, to get people to think.
          If the person is committing a crime by saying something like that, it would be about conspiring to commit a crime, and anyone genuinely replying is doing the same, but it is on public grounds, and can possibly be used as evidence as a confession of guilt. If these messages weren't kept on the board, many child molesters would have inadequate evidence against them.
          Is it against the law to allow someone to show a confession of guilt?
          Yes, we are talking about free speech.
          You are allowed to say, "I abuse my dog" in public, or even write a song.
          What is shame?
      • User picture
        • siamodiversi on Mon 28 Sep 2009
        • 05:21:27 AM UTC

        Free-speech

        Every person has opinions (I hope), "and whether or not you or me disagree with them does not mean they should be silenced." Yes to free-speech!
        • User picture
          • Reprotected on Mon 28 Sep 2009
          • 11:38:22 PM UTC

          Hatred

          And what if hated was promoted from this 'free speech?'
        • User picture
          • BobJam (not verified) on Tue 29 Sep 2009
          • 01:35:55 AM UTC

          Not so simple and there is a line

          The US Supreme Court has grappled with the issue since the Constitution was written in the late 1700's. They have ruled both ways on the issue (with hundreds and hundreds of pages detailing the majority opinion and the dissent), so it's far from settled by some noteworthy legal minds.

          No less a brilliant mind than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. writing for the majority opinion in a 1919 case, said " "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

          On the other hand, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in a 1989 flag burning case where the court overturned the conviction of a flag burner, asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

          Interestingly, The Supreme Court has usually refused to give obscenity any protection under the First Amendment. As far as the definition of pornography, Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that, although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it."

          Also, regarding Child Pornography, the court has consistently ruled that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. Essentially, free-speach doesn't prevail when it comes to CP.

          Journalists also have grappled with the issue, so it's not just in the arena of legal affairs.

          Bottom line, I hardly think the free-speach issues can be definitively expressed in your two short sentences, especially if experienced legal minds and journalists have yet to settle the issues.

          And as far as "silencing" or "censorship" goes, WOT raters are NOT "silencing" or "censoring" anything. If a user decides to take a WOT warning as an indicator that a site shouldn't be visited, then that decision is entirely up to the user. WOT DOES NOT prevent the user from going to the site, unless the user him/herself decides to heed the warning (or activates blocking).

          As for the "line", each of us draws it according to our own judgement. That's the part where I said it's up to the user to heed WOT's warning . . . or not. For a lot of us, "free-speach" is NOT an open-ended proposition.
  5. User picture
    • g7w on Tue 25 Aug 2009
    • 10:17:28 PM UTC

    Thanks for bringing this site to the Forum

    I haven't heard of it until now, so I haven't rated it until now..

    Let's see...
    A quick whois check shows that this domain was created 05 February 2008 to Swartholm Gottfrid and is hosted on a dedicated server (IP 88.80.21.11)

    mxToolBox shows the following for the anontalk.com's mail servers:
    (all transferred to Google - to hide from spam?)
    10 ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com 209.85.211.90
    20 ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com 209.85.217.32
    20 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com 209.85.212.75
    30 ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.com 209.85.135.27
    30 ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.com 209.85.199.27
    30 ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.com 209.85.219.5
    30 ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.com 209.85.210.2
    Robtex shows anontalk.com is:
    LISTED IN BLACKLIST!
    in.dnsbl.org

    So...

    Going over to DNSBL.org and looking up the domain name:
    we see:
    anontalk.com entered on 2009-04-14 11:30:26

    child/illegal porn

    Not to mention spamming wikiPedia
    Too many to list, and they don't link the site, so it would be best if the entire string "anontalk" or "www.'''AnonTalk.com'''" that's usually used could be blocked from entering into any wp article
    Also reference MediaWiki Spam Blacklist

    IMHO no more investigation is required

    88.80.21.11
    anontalk.com
    -------
    Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
    WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
    Thank you all
    - G7W
    • User picture
      • g7w on Tue 25 Aug 2009
      • 10:22:07 PM UTC

      IP needs rated

      Hopefully... 88.80.21.11
      -------
      Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
      WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
      Thank you all
      - G7W
    • User picture
      • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
      • 10:31:06 PM UTC

      Incorrect

      First of all, the site itself (the administrator, of which there is only one) has NEVER spammed Wikipedia. It is, again, overzealous users that he has tried to discourage numerous times.

      Secondly, the site has never hosted any child/illegal pornography. The site is 100% legal. Your reference is incorrect. Feel free to see this page if you feel otherwise:
      http://www.anontalk.com/legal

      • User picture
        • BobJam (not verified) on Tue 25 Aug 2009
        • 11:16:44 PM UTC

        Administrator is responsible

        "overzealous users that he has tried to discourage numerous times."
        An administrator IS responsible for what goes on at the site.

        Instead of "trying to discourage" these posters, they should be banned immediately, and the links removed.

        "the site has never hosted any child/illegal pornography"
        If there are links pointing to CP, then the site is indeed hosting CP, albeit indirectly, nevertheless by allowing it the site is culpable.

        "The site is 100% legal"
        Does that make links to CP OK?

        "Feel free to see this page if you feel otherwise"
        A "legal notice" written by the site (and that's a pretty safe assumption as the wording is conspicuously coloquial, but if I'm wrong please clarify) is sort of like the fox guarding the chickens.

        And even if it was a determination made by a third party attorney, my point that "legality" still doesn't make links to CP OK holds.

        And if the site is not spamming then the administrator needs to get it taken off the blacklist. Any guess why the administrator has not done that?
        • User picture
          • Q3 on Tue 25 Aug 2009
          • 11:21:36 PM UTC

          response

          It is a completely anonymous site, with no form of identification for anyone. Would you like to tell me how you expect him to know who is spamming? He does ban anyone who admits to doing it.

          There are NO links to CP. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me (although I wouldn't recommend posting it here, obviously, file an elaborate abuse report with the site. See "Stuff".)

          Yes, it is the administrator writing the page.

          "Sysop" (who I shall be herein referring the "administrator" to) has frequently tried to get AT off blacklists, it never quite seems to work. Some people obviously have a huge problem with the site not moderating what is typically perceived as immoral.
          • User picture
            • g7w on Tue 25 Aug 2009
            • 11:54:40 PM UTC

            reap what you sow

            Fair enough, AT is not directly responcible... so you say.

            Here's the deal, get AT&T to unBan certain... associates
            Get wikipedia to remove all references of AT from both the UserTalk page(s) and the spam domain blacklist.
            Get DNSBL (recent) blacklist entry removed.
            Stop using Google mail for the "domain" and reinstate your original assigned MX

            Stay clean from these and other blacklist services for at least 6 months.
            and I for one will increase my rating, and change my scorecard comment.

            Otherwise... Reap what you sow
            -------
            Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
            WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
            Thank you all
            - G7W
            • User picture
              • Xp54321 on Wed 26 Aug 2009
              • 12:25:15 AM UTC

              Wikipedia

              I should note there is still an edit filter in place at Wikipedia designed to block AnonTalk spam.

              Information about the edit filter system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter.

              :-)

              —Xp54321
            • User picture
              • Q3 on Wed 26 Aug 2009
              • 12:31:29 AM UTC

              will do

              I'll try a good majority of those, but I obviously cannot control the MX records. I am not going to mention this to Sysop, however, since Google Apps is just a choice for email and it seems ridiculous to keep a negative site rating for that sole purpose.

              I will definitely try to de-blacklist it, though.
          • User picture
            • halcy on Wed 26 Aug 2009
            • 02:06:42 AM UTC

            The moderators apparently

            The moderators apparently know absolutely everything about any poster - including post history (Or maybe they do not, but post history is definitely saved). Users are tracked by IP and Cookie. How a site stockpiling user information like that can claim to be "anonymous" is a mystery to me.

            Linking to child porn is illegal in many Jurisdictions. And even if it was not, child porn related websites are pretty obviously on the shadier side of the web. And AnonTalk is exactly that, even if the website is hiding behind a "Free Speech" facade - Just _look_ at the "current topics" page, every fourth or so is somehow about fucking children, most of those that are not are not in any way about controversial topics - because most theads about controversial topics NOT related to pedophilia get deleted in an instant. If you point this out or ask where your thread went, you are banned.

            As for the spamming, it is pretty obviously the Sysops work. At some point in recent history, he complained to the operator of another website that he was somehow infringing anontalks copyright. After the owner of this other website told the Sysop that his claim was ridiculous, that website was hit by spam so much that it pretty much ceased being useable - quite apparently a retalitatory denial of service attack. ( http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Anontalk.com#Kimm... After his exchange, spam followed near-instantly. [Yes, I know that this is a horible website but I can't find a better writeup of this])

            Even if it was not his work, his constant nagging for people to "Spread the word" on anontalks "Bulletins" page sounds pretty "Go ahead, spam everywhere". And there are _several_ topics where people, possibly the Sysop himself, brags about spaming other websites.

            In summary, the negative ratings are well-deserved.
            • User picture
              • Q3 on Wed 26 Aug 2009
              • 06:54:51 AM UTC

              response

              The moderators apparently know absolutely everything about any poster - including post history (Or maybe they do not, but post history is definitely saved). Users are tracked by IP and Cookie. How a site stockpiling user information like that can claim to be "anonymous" is a mystery to me.

              How is one single bit of that different from the numerous forums I'm sure you visit on a daily basis, including this one? IP addresses are never saved after you reach a certain "trusted status" point. You are not outright tracked by cookies, it simply remembers your internal posting ID for convenience to you. If you do not wish for it to keep your internal posting ID, you can simply not back it up and clear cookies. The moderators of the site can not see any personally-identifiable information, including IP address, even if you're brand new. Only Sysop can.

              Linking to child porn is illegal in many Jurisdictions. And even if it was not, child porn related websites are pretty obviously on the shadier side of the web.

              It does not link to child pornography, the site is not even remotely about that.

              most theads about controversial topics NOT related to pedophilia get deleted in an instant.

              This is an outright lie, there are countless controversial topics about things that aren't even remotely related to children.

              If you point this out or ask where your thread went, you are banned.

              If you ask about it in a topic, yes, you are. This clearly indicates that you haven't read the rules. If you send a private message to Sysop, he has always explained why the topic was deleted; it has happened to me on quite a few occasions, so I'm talking from personal experience.

              As for the spamming, it is pretty obviously the Sysops work. {and all following text}

              Not only do you not have one iota of proof for this, but you don't even mention the site. If the best you can honestly do is a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which obviously has an extremely anti-AT bias:
              http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AnonTalk
              ...then I severely doubt the truth behind the story. That site cannot be considered reputable in any sense of the word. Can you, at the very least, link to a page on the official site that was on the receiving end of this "attack"? I would take it with a grain of salt, but at least it would be from a source even the slightest bit involved in it.

              Even if it was not his work, his constant nagging for people to "Spread the word" on anontalks "Bulletins" page sounds pretty "Go ahead, spam everywhere".

              That is not true. He wants you to spread the word through a link on your site, through friends, etc. He has stated on a lot of occasions, which I can link to right now for you if you'd so like, where he has highly discouraged spam of any nature.
              • User picture
                • halcy on Wed 26 Aug 2009
                • 02:39:06 PM UTC

                > How is one single bit of

                > How is one single bit of that different from the numerous forums I'm sure you visit on a daily basis, including this one?

                They either don't claim to be anonymous or they actually do not log.

                > Only Sysop can.

                He and everyone else who gets access by means of accidental exposure or the police kicking down the door. It's saved, it's logged - no privacy.

                > It does not link to child pornography, the site is not even remotely about that.

                No child porn? Are you fucking joking? Okay, I'll just have a customary glance at the recent topics:

                http://www.anontalk.com/topic/34070
                http://www.anontalk.com/topic/34067
                http://www.anontalk.com/topic/34055
                http://www.anontalk.com/topic/33820

                That's ONE DAY of posts. (I'd not recommend opening the link in those topics to anyone, obviously.)

                > This is an outright lie, there are countless controversial topics about things that aren't even remotely related to children.

                In the recent topics, I count _three_. Compare with the 23-ish pedophilia-related topics. The rest is drivel.

                > If you send a private message to Sysop, he has always explained why the topic was deleted;

                Or, alternately, you get "shitlisted". But you wouldn't have heard of anyone to whom this happened, because, as mentioned, it's not possible to mention that anywhere on the website.

                > Not only do you not have one iota of proof for this

                So those websites ~magically, coincidentally~ got spammed right after the Sysop had a heated e-mail exchange with the sites owner? I don't but that.

                > Can you, at the very least, link to a page on the official site

                See any part of anontalk.fr. tincyhan.org has, by now, stopped the spam via strong filtering mechanisms.

                > That is not true. He wants you to spread the word through a link on your site, through friends, etc.

                That's not how it comes across. Maybe you should ask him to stop saying that - if there's any chance that that stops the spam, it might be worth a try!
                • User picture
                  • Q3 on Wed 26 Aug 2009
                  • 08:53:07 PM UTC

                  ellipsis

                  At the moment, I can not follow the links, due to the site temporarily being down, but I will respond to the other points.

                  They either don't claim to be anonymous or they actually do not log.
                  You do understand what "anonymous" means, right? It's not binary. It does not have either "on" or "off". It has degrees. Being completely anonymous to the public, and to the administrator for everything but an IP address, is pretty damn anonymous.

                  It's saved, it's logged - no privacy.
                  It is legal in all sane jurisdictions, the police are not going to do anything. NOTHING is logged except an IP address, and your posts attached to an internal posting ID that is never seen. If you become a regular, not even your IP address is stored. It has some of the best privacy on the internet. If you use WOT, not only is your nickname publicly available, but every single site you access is sent back to WOT with as much personally identifiable information as they want. I'm not saying they do anything with it, but that's already 100x more intrusive than AT.

                  In the recent topics, I count _three_. Compare with the 23-ish pedophilia-related topics. The rest is drivel.
                  On the "Latest Topics" page, there are 100 topics listed. That still leaves around 75 topics. What you do or don't consider "drivel" is entirely subjective, this has absolutely no point.

                  Or, alternately, you get "shitlisted". But you wouldn't have heard of anyone to whom this happened, because, as mentioned, it's not possible to mention that anywhere on the website.
                  No, you're not allowed to mention this on the site. That is spam. It is explicitly against the rules. No one has ever been banned from AnonTalk for just asking Sysop why a topic was deleted. As I've said, I've done it numerous times.

                  So those websites ~magically, coincidentally~ got spammed right after the Sysop had a heated e-mail exchange with the sites owner?
                  You don't list the sites, you don't give me any proof whatsoever... this point is moot until you actually have something to back up your opinion.

                  See any part of anontalk.fr. tincyhan.org has, by now, stopped the spam via strong filtering mechanisms.
                  Excuse me? Some random spam on some random website is supposed to be proof it's coming from AT? I don't even see it listed. In fact, one of the topics at the top is accusing your site of the spam:
                  http://anontalk.fr/?view=37099

                  If you're going to link something, at least make sure it's in your favor.
                  • User picture
                    • halcy on Thu 27 Aug 2009
                    • 03:39:37 AM UTC

                    > I'm not saying they do

                    > I'm not saying they do anything with it, but that's already 100x more intrusive than AT.

                    Yes, and that's ok, because I agreed to that beforehand, and no one is doing any handwaving to try and pretend this isn't happening. There's a privacy policy, clearly marked as such and linked in obvious places, where all the info on what is saved and not is in one place, clearly stated. That's how professional websites handle things like that.

                    > legal in all sane jurisdictions

                    That does not leave many jurisdictions then, I guess. It'd be illegal in, for example, germany. That was merely an example, anyways. A different one would be a hacker gaining access to logs. You log shit, you're not a website where people are "completely anonymous" and should not claim you are, or at least add some link to a privacy policy where you state what you save.

                    > No, you're not allowed to mention this on the site

                    Yeah. Incidentally, that's a pretty great way to make sure no one sees when anyone fucks up, or censors others opinions.

                    > You don't list the sites, you don't give me any proof whatsoever... this point is moot until you actually have something to back up your opinion.

                    I list them in the paragraph below that one, but hey, whatever.

                    > If you're going to link something, at least make sure it's in your favor.

                    Yeah, and the spam on tinychan.org said "AnonTalk.fr is spamming TinyChan.org". Both flood attacks started at the same time, stopped at the same time. Tinychans operator had a heated mail exchange with Anontalk.coms operator beforehand, about that person being angry about his website being "stolen" somehow, which I guess anontalk.fr would also be guilty of. Also, the only person I've ever seen CamelCase "AnonTalk" and "TinyChan" is anontalk.coms sysop, so yeah.

                    Oh, and it's not "My site". I have nothing to do with the people running either.