MovieChat Forums > Moderator4
Moderator4 (581)
Posts
Replies
And as I pointed out, if we asked if they were really that age or just joking, how can we verify that without breaching some other privacy law?
So we should judge everybody else by your sense of humour because they didn't say an age you found acceptable? You're probably the only person here who didn't see it as a joke.
If you read the Privacy Policy final sentence, you will note that we have not been provided with any "actual knowledge" of the age of that person or anything else identifiable so unless you have some, the post stays as is and is assumed to be the joke it was obviously intended to be.
Can I see your birth certificate to authenticate your age to be sure you are legally allowed to be here?
Should we ban people for what appears to be an obvious joke? If we asked if they were joking or not, how can we believe them? What if someone accuses you of being underage? Should we ban you also?
It says the site is intended for those over 18. We do not verify age or even identity. Should we? No, because that would be an invasion of privacy.
At some point, common sense has to play a part or nobody would be able to post here in the end if they made a similar joke or had someone troll them about their real age.
"clinical"?
They were clearly joking but for the record, I was curious as to what part of COPPA we were supposed to be in breach of.
What part exactly was violated in that sentence?
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions
This is true.
Censorship and some new underhand tactics are still being used on X, like removing followers, disabling notifications for some accounts even when it shows they are switched on and shadow-banning is still rife.
What is the point of handing someone a microphone in a crowded hall but not switching it on so only the people in the front row can hear you? That's not free speech: it's just more weasel words for censorship.
Also, your first hire as owner shouldn't be a pro censorship CEO with ties to the pro-censorship WEF.
Also, unlike X, we will give you an explanation as to why something was removed or someone was temp/banned.
I think you misunderstood. 'I' don't claim they are the same person. The media claimed someone with the same name, around the same age, living in the Windsor area and with a Portuguese connection took the image. I point out that a person answering that description on LinkedIn says it was not him while the image the media presents 'appears' to be AI generated.
Many years ago, I was once accused by someone of something which was not true after reporting to my bosses finding some creepy documents he had written about me and my daily routines etc on my (shared) work computer. He claimed I wrote them. I eventually managed to prove he was a liar with dogged determination and a program called xtree gold and that I could not have possibly have done what he accused me of because 1. I was never in the building during the times when the documents were saved and had witnesses to say I was always in the cafe for lunch and 2., the printer listed as being used to print off the docs did not exist in the building but was tied to his work documents as being his home printer. That set me off on a lifelong journey to prove what is true and to not believe what someone claims and what others at the time are willing to believe. I've become a lifelong sceptic of many claims but also love to theorise on what may or may not be. I like to investigate stuff. It's not weird or sad. It's healthy to be sceptical rather than blindly believing everything you are told. Especially so when you are being lied to (or about). What's sad is people who continue to believe the people who keep lying to you and every time they say 'trust me bro' you believe that too.
If the real creator of the vid wanted to remain anon then they could have said so. They would have been paid either way.
Which link doesn't work for you?
And you didn't answer my question about if she doesn't appear in public at Easter, will you start to have doubts about her wellbeing too?
Apparently even TMZ are now having some doubts about the authenticity of the Kate and maybe William too in the video - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OuSgiq3nVmc?feature=share
Did I say I believed him or did I present EVIDENCE that their claim was not true?
Again, you seem to mistake what I believe with what I can prove with alternate THEORIES that I present. That he lives next to Windsor and speaks or is Portuguese is maybe a coincidence or more evidence of a fake story.
Here I will present EVIDENCE that their claim about the 'person' Nelson Silva (pictured here https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/DD-kate-splash_COMBO.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1080&h=1080&crop=1 ) may not be real via a website which claims it can detect AI generated photos and says there is a 97.52% chance that the image is AI generated. https://isitai.com/ai-image-detector/
Would I trust The Sun to tell the truth? Hahahahahahaha.
Ever asked yourself why a perfectly normal family photo would even need to be photoshopped in the places that it was?
Piers Morgan always supports the Royals so for him to now say let's back up and say this is not normal or right says something.
Why would it be fair when they lied already and have now put off the Easter date?
Also, did TMZ & The Sun get conned with that video as the person they claimed took it & paid a few thousand for says he didn't take it?
By the way, the man who TMZ & the MSM claimed took the footage has publicly stated on LinkedIn that he did not - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nelson-silva-7003391a7_weirdest-disclaimer-ive-ever-had-to-make-activity-7175884982836436992-B4Tf?trk=public_profile
View all replies >