Manipulation of browsers?

[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?

My expert in cybersecurity and tech husband has been using duct tape over his computer camera for years. Turns out he was right. They can be turned on in nefarious ways and now can be done on other devices without a light shining to alert the owner. People called him paranoid - turns out he was right.

[Anonymous]

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

OP here. Nothing I am doing can hack the site, nor do I have the desire to hack the site. In order for Jeff to run this site, he needs advertisers and Google is the usual ‘master’. They have policies that Jeff must comply with. I don’t think Jeff is a bad person. I think he needs to feed his family and pay his bills like everyone else.

[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.

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.

I guess I should have consulted a therapist rather than my bank when my debit card information was stolen by a ring of thieves? And perhaps a therapist would be much more useful than a company like LifeLock, who has saved my from identity theft in the past. Digital intrusion, spying, and theft do not require a therapist - they require legal consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess I should have consulted a therapist rather than my bank when my debit card information was stolen by a ring of thieves? And perhaps a therapist would be much more useful than a company like LifeLock, who has saved my from identity theft in the past. Digital intrusion, spying, and theft do not require a therapist - they require legal consequences.

How did the “ring of thieves” steal your debit card info?

[Anonymous]

OP, what are the words? I want to see if I can post them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I guess I should have consulted a therapist rather than my bank when my debit card information was stolen by a ring of thieves? And perhaps a therapist would be much more useful than a company like LifeLock, who has saved my from identity theft in the past. Digital intrusion, spying, and theft do not require a therapist - they require legal consequences.

How did the “ring of thieves” steal your debit card info?

According to the police report, the thieves sat out in parking lots and used binocs to get pins. They also put something in the machines themselves to record the card numbers. When you see signs telling you to shield your pin when typing it in, this is why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are the words? I want to see if I can post them.

Va**ine
C&&id

And a lot of other related words.

[Anonymous]

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

It sounds like you don’t understand “detailed tech”. 😂

[Anonymous]

Op you are ruining the fun of the site and frankly have me concerned that you are trying to steal my identity.

[Anonymous]

OP, so glad to know I'm not the only one being blocked. Not sharing how Jeff is blocking, but it started with the words. If you pass him off he blocks you from posting, yet you can still read the forum (deep down Jeff is a capitalist, but don't tell all the Marxist on here).

Jeff is the modern day version of Winston Smith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, so glad to know I'm not the only one being blocked. Not sharing how Jeff is blocking, but it started with the words. If you pass him off he blocks you from posting, yet you can still read the forum (deep down Jeff is a capitalist, but don't tell all the Marxist on here).

Jeff is the modern day version of Winston Smith.

Hoo boy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are the words? I want to see if I can post them.

Va**ine
C&&id

And a lot of other related words.

NP. Vaccine. Covid.

[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.

DP. Testing this.
Asshole
Vaccine
Covid
Dipshit

[jsteele]

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.

DP. Testing this.
Asshole
Vaccine
Covid
Dipshit

You sound like my wife when I forget to take out the garbage.

[Anonymous]

LOL. It’s 2021 in 4 words.