Manipulation of browsers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not anything MAGAy. They were approved words a lot of other people use all the time. But with the test persona I created, that person was banned from using the same words, which means a targeted approach is being used

Hold on, so you had one persona with the username "Anonymous" and then you created a second persona with the username "Anonymous" and you fooled everyone? Do I have that right?

I’m simplifying because most people don’t understand detailed tech

I’m sure it’s all easier to understand after you put in the tin-foil hat.

Tin foil hats do help

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once I tried to post a reply to a post and I kept getting error. I redid my post multiple times and I was certain there was no bad words in it and still got error. Finally gave up trying to quote the post and just posted my reply and it went through that time on the first try. So there must have been something in the post I was trying to reply to that was blocked for me but not the person who originally posted it.

Very clear example of what I speak of. I do notice that with some browsers that use icons, the lock icon, which is supposed to show locked all the time, unlocks when one hits reply on this forum.

The most obvious explanation for the first poster's issue is that she was replying to an old post that contained a word that was blocked subsequent to it being posted. I have no idea why the lock icon disappears because if you check the URL, it is still https. Possibly it is because the emoticon icons in the reply post have hard-coded "http" URLs. Those get redirected by the server to https, so even the emoticons go through an encrypted connection. But, maybe the browser reacts to the original http. I can change the hardcoding to https and see if the lock icon stays there. But, frankly, I never noticed that before.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There is something called device fingerprinting that allows a website to collect some very specific tracking data, which updates automatically. Jeff says he does not use it and I am taking his word on that, because I don’t believe he wants the legal quagmire that can go along using this method without specific, revocable consent from members.

You con't have to take my word for it. Your browser can show what scripts are running on this site. Just check for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

Ok but Jeff could just block anyone or delete posts and does frequently so why do you think he would go to that crazy level of effort to affect specific individuals like you? It’s a very elaborate theory to explain why people on this site tend to not agree with that just doesn’t pass the “simplest explanation” test. Sometimes you want things to be true so badly it comes up with complex explanations just to tell you what you want to hear. If It is too conveniently centered around you to be likely, then you should question it, though.

[Anonymous]

Horses, not zebras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

Ok but Jeff could just block anyone or delete posts and does frequently so why do you think he would go to that crazy level of effort to affect specific individuals like you? It’s a very elaborate theory to explain why people on this site tend to not agree with that just doesn’t pass the “simplest explanation” test. Sometimes you want things to be true so badly it comes up with complex explanations just to tell you what you want to hear. If It is too conveniently centered around you to be likely, then you should question it, though.

Again, I'm curious about digital intrusion, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

You’re probably just replying to old posts.

He bans some expressions as they pop up (ok, bxxmer, let’s go, b, etc). So the “old post” doesn’t necessarily have to be all that old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

Ok but Jeff could just block anyone or delete posts and does frequently so why do you think he would go to that crazy level of effort to affect specific individuals like you? It’s a very elaborate theory to explain why people on this site tend to not agree with that just doesn’t pass the “simplest explanation” test. Sometimes you want things to be true so badly it comes up with complex explanations just to tell you what you want to hear. If It is too conveniently centered around you to be likely, then you should question it, though.

Again, I'm curious about digital intrusion, etc.

NP. I have an acquaintance who believes things like this…that random entities are “after” him. As you can imagine, the actual problem is that he’s mentally ill.

If you have a legitimate concern that the mod is inappropriately “digitally intruding” on you in some way, then what do you expect will be gained by asking him a series of vague questions in the Website Feedback forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because someone types a$$hole or something like that doesn’t mean the word asshole is actually banned.

Exactly. But in the experiments I’ve run, if someone types asshole and I reply, I get a forbidden message unless I change to a$$hole.

Your proof post has the word asshole. Or do you think Jeff allowed it this time to gaslight you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because someone types a$$hole or something like that doesn’t mean the word asshole is actually banned.

Exactly. But in the experiments I’ve run, if someone types asshole and I reply, I get a forbidden message unless I change to a$$hole.

Your proof post has the word asshole. Or do you think Jeff allowed it this time to gaslight you?

OP won’t share the top-secret words that are banned for just him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

Ok but Jeff could just block anyone or delete posts and does frequently so why do you think he would go to that crazy level of effort to affect specific individuals like you? It’s a very elaborate theory to explain why people on this site tend to not agree with that just doesn’t pass the “simplest explanation” test. Sometimes you want things to be true so badly it comes up with complex explanations just to tell you what you want to hear. If It is too conveniently centered around you to be likely, then you should question it, though.

Again, I'm curious about digital intrusion, etc.

Op I bet you are awesome at pattern recognition and generally very smart. Most smart people I know have anxiety, I think that just goes hand in hand. And of course there’s good cause to be anxious about internet privacy. But obsessive anxiety gets stronger every time you give into it. And then it becomes paranoia. I think feeling targeted is a signal to you that you may want to reconsider your train of thought, and get a trusted external opinion like a therapist or a irl friend or relative to talk over those feelings. No judgement from here.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, OP, it almost sounds like you're trying to hack this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I think about it, I seem to remember that this happens to me too. But it's so rare I can't even remember the exact circumstances, and I don't care enough to make up conspiracy theories around it. I've always just assumed the system occasionally glitches. On the whole, DCUM runs rather efficiently given it only has one (or two?) full-time people working on it.

+1
It’s happened to me once or twice in the past, too. The difference between you and I and the OP is that neither you nor I decided that it happened because Jeff has a personal vendetta against us and is “manipulating the browsers.”

There’s no personal vendetta. I’m genuinely curious because it’s my field. Jeff already stated that in his opinion, some posters are deranged lunatics and he constricts what those people can/can’t say.

Ok but Jeff could just block anyone or delete posts and does frequently so why do you think he would go to that crazy level of effort to affect specific individuals like you? It’s a very elaborate theory to explain why people on this site tend to not agree with that just doesn’t pass the “simplest explanation” test. Sometimes you want things to be true so badly it comes up with complex explanations just to tell you what you want to hear. If It is too conveniently centered around you to be likely, then you should question it, though.

Again, I'm curious about digital intrusion, etc.

NP. I have an acquaintance who believes things like this…that random entities are “after” him. As you can imagine, the actual problem is that he’s mentally ill.

If you have a legitimate concern that the mod is inappropriately “digitally intruding” on you in some way, then what do you expect will be gained by asking him a series of vague questions in the Website Feedback forum?

You do know there are legitimate ways to test for this, right?