Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

That blog post is about the 1.1.1.3 'family friendly' DNS service and has NOTHING TO DO with Cloudflare banning sex worker sites from using their DDoS protection service. Cloudflare banned sites like Switter from DDoS protection. Cloudflare doesn't ban Kiwi Farms from it.

Replying to

and

So, Daniel, what you are implying is that you want the Americans to revoke #Section230 of the Communications Decency Act so that platforms share liability for what their users say, so therefore then #Cloudflare can block them under Terms of Use?

en.wikipedia.org

Section 230 - Wikipedia

Replying to

and

Once again, you're making a completely disingenuous and dishonest argument. Kiwi Farms doesn't have an issue with moderation. It has plenty of moderation. Kiwi Farms actively organizes doxxing, harassment and libel campaigns against trans and autistic people. You're full of shit.

Replying to

and

I wonder, perhaps, if there's a better way to articulate a given position without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Replying to

and

Stating that an argument is completely dishonest and disingenuous isn't an ad hominem attack. It's

@AlecMuffett

who is repeatedly resorting to strawman arguments and misrepresentations of what I've stated over and over. You're essentially doing the same thing right now.

Replying to

and

My comment was regards to the "you're full of shit" statement. I wonder if there's a better way to appeal to convince than such a phrase.

Replying to

and

Doesn't change the fact that it's not an ad hominem attack. I'm talking about his behavior here where he falls back on strawman arguments again and again, misrepresents what I've stated and ignores most of what I've said and pretends as if he hadn't seen it to debate dishonestly.

Replying to

When people are people incredibly dishonest and underhanded, I'm not going to be polite to them, sorry. It's odd you're choosing to defend the person who has repeatedly engaged in those tactics and you're attacking me for calling them out for it. Really not a good look for you.

Replying to

and

After re-reading my statements, I'm convinced I'm not defending either of you.

Replying to

and

I already know you support and work with abusers so it's not really a surprise to see you trying to tone police in a dishonest way.

10:15 PM · Sep 3, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

> I already know you support and work with abusers This is a serious accusation. Please state your evidence.

Replying to

and

You said so to me yourself. Are you now denying that you work with the group of people who have orchestrated a libel and harassment campaign targeting me including publishing a 1 hour hit piece full of fabrications about me on YouTube? You previously admitted you do.

Show replies