Hey there! We're a collective of people who have been harassed, plagiarized, humiliated, and abused — sexually...

Right? What kind of monster demands proof of a crime?

Fuck right off with that shite.

ioerror responds:

twitlonger.com/show/n_1soorlp

Unacceptable?

Yes, guilty until proven innocent. I mean, all you need is one white woman to say a black guy raped her and we're grabbing our favorite rope.

Here, we only do that when we are told that our picante sauce was made in New York City.

I don't know what to think. I assume all these allegations are about things that happened in at least several months in the past. so it's not likely people will be able to prove much of anything. Such is the difficulty with sexual abuse.

I wouldn't be particularly shocked if everything is true. I would be shocked if it was ultimately a ruse by the US government or otherwise, either. It seems unlikely he will face charges either way.

If someone were out to just discredit him it makes perfect sense not to try to involve the law, because then there is a chance he could be found innocent. Probably he won't push for a libel case because of his anarchist convictions, so it will all just be up in the air in the court of public opinion for the rest of his life.

What does leftypol think about these kinds of allegations? In some cases shaming someone out of your community may be the only recourse you have when you don't think you can prove what happened. I don't think the standard of people speaking out against their abusers should be that they can prove everything they say to the satisfaction of whatever justice system they happen to live under. I don't think someone should have their life ruined just because a few people said they raped or groped them either. A reasonable middle ground isn't obvious.

Are people who were abused and scared to speak out when their abuser has power over them just fucked if they can't come out with their experiences until later?
Is the accusation of rape by itself meant to mean a lifetime of exile from some of the people, places and things you value most?

I want to just believe people who say they were raped. I've had people tell me they were raped, and of course my response wasn't "well, where's the proof? Let's wait until all the facts come out. You're nut just trying to ruin their reputation, are you?"

I'm genuinely asking, because I don't have an answer for this dilemma? Surely Holla Forums's answer can't be "just let the police handle it".

He works for the US government. Tor is funded by the Navy.

What's you're point? Even if the US gov wants him to work on Tor they certainly don't like many of the other things he does and says.

One of the points ioerror has made in the past is that US.gov isn't a monolithic entity. Different heads of the hydra can have conflicting objectives sometimes.

...

correction:

Please escort me to that part of the world free of drama and envy.

Who is saying they should?

This guy is a bigtime SJW, so he's not exactly trustworthy. The amount of people accusing him of plagiarism, harassment, coordinated smears, and sexual abuse is pretty large for a fed smear campaign. Frankly he's the one who comes across as a govt. agent with the way he goes after people, and he IS literally on government payroll for his TOR work.

If it IS just a big smear against Jacob, then why is the whole TOR organization doing it? In that case it's either TOR or Jacob that we have to be suspicious of. If you're on team Jacob, then you can pretty much throw TOR in the garbage, in which case, what exactly is the value of his work on TOR anyway?

Yep exactly, some agencies see TOR as a tool for undermining Russia, China, etc. and don't care about the CP or drugs because they aren't in the FBI or ATF. Not exactly exonerating him, but it just makes TOR less likely to be totally backdoored or some shit like that.

In FALC you don't depend on your reputation for survival. You can get fired and ostracized but still receive your free rations/healthcare/housing/UBI. Therefore people have less incentive to kiss ass, and more incentive to associate with people and behave in ways that please them. Also with more mental health access, less crazy people will be running things and fucking shit up.

You not agreeing with someone's views isn't proof that they're a liar.

No way the US Federal Gov could possibly coordinate like 10 people.

Wrong. The security properties of tor the software/protocol are interdependently studied and verified by multiple academic institutions not affiliated with the tor project.

Also:
>Not only have I been the target of a fake website in my name that has falsely accused me of serious crimes, but I have also received death threats (including a Twitter handle entitled ‘TimeToDieJake’).
This "I'm getting death threats so I'm telling the truth" stuff is 100% SJW.

Really, it's damaging to the community? Here he's trying to escalate the consequences. Not only are you damaging him by speaking out, but you're also hurting everyone else!

So now he's saying he has done things mess with people, but he apologized every time. Why should this matter to us? The question is whether or not he's a plagiarist or a sex abuser. If he just hurt somebody's feelings, it shouldn't matter to us. If he apologized, it shouldn't matter to us. Either he did the stuff in question or he didn't.

No, sociopaths gravitate to SJW rhetoric because it's extremely easy to push people around with it. Look at Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, Randi Harper, and all the other lying scum who hide behind a moral code that they betray at every turn. The people who are the most vocal about it frequently have stuff to hide and they're trying to get the high ground.

These people have been in the scene for ages. Sure the feds could be bribing them or something, but then you can just guess pretty much anything. And it raises the question: why would he be so important for some agency to take out? Will we see other TOR devs taken out by rumors or allegations like this? He's not the leader of TOR or anything. Why go to the effort?

I'm not talking about the protocol itself, I'm talking about the organization. We already pretty much know what the weak points of TOR are: JS&Flash, node correlation, and the fact that accessing it in the first place paints a big red mark on your internet usage. The question is, is the TOR organization a bunch of feds out to get this one guy, or is this one guy a scumbag?

What?
All I know is the first lady is said to have slept with someone to get a better videogame review. How is this related at all?

You could say the same thing of many people with virtually any politics.

No. If he was in fact targeted by some agency, it would be because of his journalism, and political views. Not because he works on Tor. I don't see the feds trying to take out Rodger Dingledine any time soon.

It not as simple as that. The allegations could be in part true: he's a narcissistic asshole, he get's drunk and makes out with people inappropriately. People gossip about this for years. Suddenly everyone starts talking about rape out of nowhere and the people with relatively minor complaints start piecing together an entirely different picture of the guy they just thought was kind of a dick before.
The feds only need to poison the well a little bit to turn many people against him. Even if people don't believe all of what's said against him, it still discredits anything he says almost entirely. This would be the outcome a government operation would be interested in with respect to Jacob Appelbaum.

You're opinion of him isn't what's at issue here. The point I'm making is it would take a fed operation only a small amount of effort to push a community from, "that guy's kind of an asshole" to "he's a rapist, cut him out of your life, don't give him or his views a platform" especially in the kind of sjw environment you seem so concerned with.

This doesn't answer my question: why him and not someone else?

This scenario would not make my opinion of him better or worse. What's the point of discussing it?

I'm not saying we know for sure he did X Y Z thing, just that people clearly aren't thinking through on their defenses of him, and they sure are going to a lot of effort to defend him even though there's clearly not much point in it.

yeah but it clearly adds a lot of complication and you'd have to explain a lot of extra shit for it to make sense.

This isn't even remotely similar to the Assange "accusation," which was just based on one woman who personally says that she doesn't think he should be arrested or put on trial, but was pressured by cops.

As far as people with an interest in exposing governments in tech world, he is possibly the most prominent after Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange in this respect. I don't think you doubt there are people who would very much like to discredit them. He is an obvious next target.

What extra shit? Are you implicitly playing the men with kinks are all secret rapists card here?

there's nothing like that available

if this was real they would report it instead of just complaining about it on the internet.

This thread is looking like a Town of Salem chat log…

yeah like the cosby accusations right? the real world isn't that simple.

Innocent until proven guilty. Fuck off to r/socialism dipshits.

will he ever go to court though? I mean, let's wait and see, but if he isn't stating is case on the issue and hashing it all out with evidence in a year or two, then his reputation doesn't really deserve defending.

No he won't because its clearly a NSA hit.
He's m8's with assange and snowden. One of the NSA's tackticks is to do whats happening to jacob

Snowden never had sex or abuse allegations made against him.
Assange's "allegations" were extorted from one person who has personally said he didn't rape her.
Appelbaum's allegations are from dozens of different people airing various grievances, from social manipulation, to petty dickishness, to sex assault. There's clearly no comparison to Assange or Snowden. On top of that, there's no warrant out for him, and he was in fact WORKING for the US government at the time that these allegations came to light.

I'm not saying that we know he did it for sure, but I'm saying you're full of shit with your argument.

...

you have literally just one slide from an NSA presentation to back up your argument that we know for sure he didn't do anything. the slide describes a number of things that happen in real situations as well. real victims do often blog about their experience. real victims do often tell their neighbors, friends, etc. that's WHY the NSA has that stuff on their slide, because it's realistic. so in the end, all you have is baseless speculation.

MY argument is that we don't know what he did or didn't do. My argument has a lot more support from reality than your argument.