Topic: BITCOINTALK STAFF QUIETLY BANS PEOPLE FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THEM - page 4. (Read 7848 times)

wow.  so many jr. members with such strong opinions on the matter.  this is not a democracy, it is a privately owned forum.  if you don't like how things are handled, leave and start your own.

thank you mods for your continued efforts to keep the forum somewhat under control

Section 230 doesn't matter. EU directive 2000/31/EC was over ruled in court already, setting a precendence for prosecuting cases in relation to anti-trust, such as a forum failing to remove objectionable content within a reasonable time frame. The defense may try to hide under 230, but there are any number of laws that can be used to sidestep that protection. study consumer fraud law, and realize that this forum is absolutely liable for its content. always has been, and always will be. The forum is used to facilitate monetary trades, and thus is open to more scrutiny.

Section 230 does not provide protection against a site breaking IP (intellectual property) law, which is what copyright law is.

it won't hold up for a second in court against a lawyer worth their salt, and lets face it, in these types of cases, the prosecuting attorney is always worth their salt.
You asked for proof, so here you go.

One of the most famous cases in internet history.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#.22King_Kong.22_defense

Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court?

Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and  would be reversed.

If you were referring to TF posting in the VIP section then that is not something that only he was allowed to do. Anyone else is allowed to post in the VIP section provided they donate at least 50 BTC to the forum (that much was worth much less when TF donated and when most people were donating).

A case close to one regarding advertisements is Goddard v. Google, Inc.

Any lawyer will tell you that doesn't hold up in court, because it usually doesnt.

That depends of the specific facts.  That immunity goes out the Window if the web site conspires with people who post or place the ads.  it also does not provide immunity from criminal liability.  Giving Trade Fortress specialized privileges to promote a fake bank covers both those issues.  You should read the link you posted so you understand what it means.  Some case decisions are posted there.  

As I have explained any defenses won't matter unless Mr. Marquardt (Theymos) shows up in court.

Really? You probably know better

Like I said with the exception of malware, members are not banned for scamming. Accounts are generally abandoned when they are caught trying to scam, but are not banned. The definition of a scam is shaky at best, the best definition would be something along the lines of someone stealing from someone else (or something similar to larceny or obtaining property by false pretenses), however the forum cannot know that this happened for sure (to be sure enough so that their speech should be limited) until they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in open court, which very rarely happens for bitcoin related scams.

You were are on my ignore list, however I came across your post on one of my purchased accounts and decided to chime in.

Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information.

The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post).

That is ridiculous.

What I suggest is that people start suing the forum if they realize a loss due to some of the activities here.  

How it works is that you sue the whois privacy service (which is in Panama).  It is unlikely that company will provide a court defense over a service that costs a couple dollars a year.  Most likely they will either divulge the true registrant or simply default.  

If the true registrant is identified they will need to provide a defense and identify themselves or they will default.  If they identify themselves then you can start identifying the staff and calling them in for depositions.  If they default then you can probably get a court order to seize the domain from the .org registrar which is located in the USA.  If bicointalk.org were to default you really don't need that solid of a case, you just need a prima fascia case which will be successful if they default.  By suing the forum you will put them between a rock and a hard place.  

If you think this forum does not matter in the real word, think again.  The Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation shot himself in the foot by posting here and Barry Silbert used it against him in court  Vessenes has not posted here since:

http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdf

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3289385

Forum posts have also been cited in a several other criminal and civil cases such as the Silk Road and pirateat40 prosecutions.

You're telling me accounts here are NEVER banned for scamming? I would count malware as a scam.

My hidden agenda is truth and justice for all. But please do elaborate on your conspiracy theory. PS I thought you ignored me?

This is a lie. If you try to get other people to believe this then you are scamming. The only "scam" that is moderated is that of malware (people posting links to malware).

You seem to have a hidden agenda beyond that of trying to get account sales stopped on this forum.

I never said it would.


Such as... ?



Actually you do. Every single day. Maybe you personally don't, but somebody does.



I didn't say this at all. You keep putting words in my mouth. I said "ban account selling," not ban accounts. If you want to ban the accounts being sold as punishment for breaking the rules, I'll leave that up to you.



I've made several points which you danced around, resolving nothing.


How could I have recognized that it suits my agenda yet it remains uncomprehended (sp) by myself?

Look. Banning accounts doesn't magically make the trust system perfect either. There are plenty of ways rules can contradict each other and we don't claim them to be perfect because they're not. We don't ban scammers or remove scams either but that doesn't mean we encourage or support them and banning them would do nothing either. And you are running around in circles trying to say there is a problem here whilst offering no viable solution except "ban accounts" which is a solution for nothing other than your own peace of mind. Maybe we should agree to disagree because it's clear you're not going to change your mindset and it's unlikely neither are the staff or admins unless you can actually make a valid point.


Forum corruption? There is no corruption. The only time people complain about corruption is when something doesn't go their way. Oh a mod removed my spam post - they're corrupt and censoring me! I've made plenty of intelligent arguments and you haven't once, but are now ironically resorting to a personal attack yourself, but I'm not sure you are capable of intelligent discussion as evidenced by your behaviour the last two days in having a hissy fit and throwing petulant insults around like calling people faggots and other such nonsense, now that really is a sign of a lack of an intelligent argument.


No, it is clear you peope have no concept of these issues here. I have a great concept of the issues and how they should be handled on this forum. Yes, we moderate threads and posts that break those rules. Selling accounts do not break those rules. This isn't the real world; it's an Internet forum and we go by the rules that have been set out before us. Allowing posts or certain things does not mean we endorse them. You can attempt to scam or post questionable trades or post racist exonophobic shit, but that doesn't mean anyone here endorses it and we moderate as appropriate per the rules.


It may not have gone unnoticed by you because it was merely something critical (but also irrelevant) and that suits your agenda, but I'm sure it went uncomprehended by you since you offer no elaboration or further comment on it.  

Regardless if account selling is endorsed or not, it does not change the fact that the forum is not responsible for moderating scams (or potential scams). For the most part people are able to speak what is on their mind and post what they want with very few exceptions (obvious spam, maleware, links to illegal marketplaces, trading in things that are illegal). The only "flaw" in allowing people to trade accounts is that it potentially allows people to receive ill gotten "trust" as it would allow someone to potentially pull a scam in the future.

If a scam is being attempted with a purchased account or not, it is not the forum's job to warn others about potential scams. The fact that a purchased account was paid for would make it less likely that someone would want to scam with it unless there is a very good chance the scam will be successful and the scammer will be able to scam for more then what the account was purchased for. If you know how much a specific user's "trust" is worth in a general sense then you can be reasonably certain they will not attempt to scam for less of amounts.

There are also several legit reasons as to why people wish to purchase accounts (primarily signature campaigns). If you were to attempt to ban or police account sales then the percentage of account sales for legit reasons would go significantly down and people will malicious intentions would purchase accounts off forum, and have the purchase include VPN accounts that were previously used to connect to the forum with the account (making it appear the account was not sold). This will result in more scams involving sold accounts and a false sense of security that the account you are dealing with has not been sold.

If you were to say that you were not aware that account sales are allowed then that is your own fault for not knowing the rules of the forum that you are using.

Thank you. This post did not go unnoticed.

Actually, i believe that this is frowned upon by theymos. i don't have a source on that but i recall a discussion on the matter from days long gone by.