PostAlmostAnything.com RSS Feed

Portland, Oregon Based Blues Singer Curtis Salgado Censors Critics?

DysfunctionalRelations — Sun, 27 Aug 2023 15:37:18 -07:00

Notorious Portland, Oregon based blues singer Curtis Salgado appears to be censoring critics online. This author learned of this recently after receiving a warning from Reddit not to share personal information after they blamed me for an auto-shared link to a short profile of Salgado which was created as part of a research project on celebrities with specific medical conditions many years ago. The profile cited an old article from The Oregonian which talked about Salgado using his fame to help other people with the same condition (https://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/04/salgado_concert_today_highligh.html). Perhaps other aspects of the site in question make burying its content important to Salgado or maybe he simply hired a reputation management company to suppress anything he finds undesirable for any reasons and they thought it worth their time. It may have even been an offended fan for all this author knows. Either way a associate/fan of Salgado crossed a line by censoring articles based on his high profile public activities or perhaps somebody just wanted to bait this author into publicly attacking a celebrity by filing complaints about a URL mentioning a celebrity. Reddit actually removing the link and issuing a warning is most disturbing because it means posting links to information available from the mainstream media can get you in trouble now. The article the removed link to missed a major relevant factor of Salgado's history. According to Willamette Week he is a convicted sex offender (https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-31253-oregon-lawmakers-honor-musician-and-sex-offender-curtis-salgado.html). WW didn't go into any meaningful details about Salgado's crime other than describing the laws he violated as those which punish "adults who have sex with minors." His conviction was in 1996. The video below features Salgado talking about his experience living with Hepatitis C. He is raising awareness for the Caring Ambassadors Program which helps people with Hepatitis C (https://caringambassadors.org/). CONCLUSION Curtis Salgado has no business burying negative articles about himself. He gave that up as a legitimate activity in 1996 when he became a convicted sex offender. On top of that he is a public figure. Public figures have no business going after content from small websites based on their own public statements. However, this could be a false flag operation.
Learn more: Portland, Oregon Based Blues Singer Curtis Salgado Censors Critics?

The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sun, 16 Jan 2022 21:06:13 -08:00

We recently found out that The Young Turks mentioned us in a video last year. We probably would have noticed it sooner, but the mention was entirely oral in the video with no mention of us or our founder in text form. At the time The New York Times had just published an article featuring two of our sites and we were monitoring mentions of it, but our monitoring technique focused on domains of ours mentioned in the body of the article to avoid getting a Google Alert for every link to the article containing the fictitious term "slander industry." The Young Turks released the video on their YouTube channel on May 8, 2021 titled "Slander Industry Is Booming Online" starring Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. The video is embedded below the body of this article. The video includes several personal attacks against our founder as well as an admission that a key piece of legislation which protects online service providers such as ourselves should not be changed. "Slander Industry" is Fake News It is not possible for any industry which traffics entirely in written statements to be accurately labeled a "slander" industry because the word "slander" by definition refers solely to spoken words (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander). Even when a written statement is false it cannot be accurately called "slander." A false written statement is by definition "libel" not "slander" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel). Any media outlet that wishes to be taken seriously should not put out stories with such obviously inaccurate titles. We were surprised that the story was so prolifically circulated by people taking it seriously despite the title. One would think that any average reader or viewer with so much as a high school education would realize that the title couldn't possibly be true, so the story itself should not be taken seriously. Professional journalists should know better than to use such inaccurate labels. Stories with grammatically incorrect titles such as these are at best fake news. Cenk Uygur Acknowledges Need to Protect Section 230 Despite the story being something not to be taken seriously as a whole, Cenk Uygur did speak one obvious and important truth. He said that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be left alone. That is an impressive admission for someone in the middle of an emotional tirade. Uygur's exact words beginning at about 8:35 were as follows: "Section 230 is critical. You almost can't have any websites without 230's protection. So, I wouldn't want to get rid of that at all... Then you know the thing with politicians. They'll just use it for their own, "now you're not allowed to criticize me online, all the independent things should be shut down." We know how that goes." - Cenk Uyguy We too know how that goes. It would kill most independent media in the United States if Section 230 were changed in a manner capable of rendering anyone liable for someone else's words just because they happen to own the platform used by that other person. We think the problem needs to be fixed at the other end of connection. That other end being that of the reader. People need to learn not to use unverified information as the basis for important decisions. In some cases, such as employment screening, we think people need to be banned from using internet searches if not entirely than at least until they determine a candidate is otherwise qualified from the job. That could be accomplished with legislation similar to Ban the Box. Ban the Box Ban the Box legislation restricts the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process. Typically hiring managers are banned from conducting a criminal background check until they have determined that an applicant is otherwise qualified. At that point they still need to get written permission from the applicant and must give the applicant an opportunity to explain what is found. We think the same thing needs to be done with search engine boxes. Learn more at https://postalmostanything.com/5065/new-employment-discrimination-laws-would-nullify-online-defamation Response to Character Attacks Cenk Uygur mentioned the website STDCarriers.com and its founder by name before attacking his character. The founder of STD Carriers is also the founder of Post Almost Anything. Uygur said: "They pick you one by one and say the worst things about you and now its on your Google results and god help you if you don't have money. How are you, how are you going to get it out of there? You can't and then everybody sees that this is a result on you. Its just the worst thing you've ever seen." - Cenk Uygur Nothing could be further from the truth. A computer that accepts inputs from users doesn't pick anybody. People pick it by signing up for a membership and submitting data via a form. We find it hard to believe that any website could be "the worst thing you've ever seen." Uygur often covers far worse things including terrorists (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/7JnMMxG0F0W5Hb2nXy6KhC), shooting protesters (https://tyt.com/watch/4VwNLvsEH8CWRXXS1aeCPB/clips/3UuptLjD0529JMeiDx4ynv), and Donald Trump (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/3Q8HsqA30XNVMJrqRDf3Gs). Could Uygur really keep a straight face and say that a first page Google result from STD Carriers is worse than Donald Trump? Of course he couldn't because the suggestion alone is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is his claim that gripe sites are "slandering people for profit." That statement ignores the simple facts that the sites did not create the content and written statements are never "slander." Uygur went on to attack the owner of STD Carriers personally in response to him telling the New York Times, "teach children not to talk to strangers, then teach them not to believe what they read on the internet." Rather than acknowledge the fact that none of the alleged harms allegedly caused by the website would be possible if people didn't believe what they read online, he mocks him by saying, "ok, so this guy is just saying I'm helping people lie and ruing other people's lives. Ha ha teach your kids that there are horribly evil people like me online... These guys are the most vicious liars and least moral people on the planet." Uygur then went on a rant before calling the STD Carriers owner, "a terrible person." He then labels reputation management fees "ransom" as if some crime had been committed. The word "ransom" means "a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ransom). We do not hold anything or anyone captive. Any suggestion that we demand a ransom for anything is not accurate. This type of talk is typical of people trying to criminalize something. They start referring to people, things, and activities using words typically associated with crime because they hope if they get enough people thinking about it in that way eventually it will lead to criminalization. They start calling people "victims" when no law has been broken because if it were up to them a crime would have been committed. We saw this behavior in Oregon recently when doxxing was made a tortious offense by leftists that got together after protesters were getting doxxed by Andy Ngo. Local media outlets started doing stories portraying the subjects of doxxing as victims even though no law had been broken. Eventually the legislature passed an unconstitutional bill which will never survive a competent challenge in court. Uygur made an appeal to the government to do something, but seems unaware that the government did try to do something and it did not work. In 2012 the feds charged the founder of STD Carriers with making threatening communications after a deranged stalker had harassed and swatted his family. The court ruled that because the stalker was motivated by a desire to get her name removed from the site that the business was reasonably related to the offense. Due to the "reasonably direct relationship" which the 9th Circuit upheld, he was effectively banned from running any websites for three years after serving two years for the threat. While serving his time, he picked up additional charges for assaulting a federal employee and impeding a federal officer. As a result of these actions STDCarriers.com was offline from July of 2012 until September of 2019. The owner of STD Carriers figured somebody might try to set him up someday, so he didn't keep backups of his sites in his home. His defense team was also able to recover all the contents of his offshore server. As a result the sites never fell into government hands and he was able to run them again once he was no longer on supervised released for the threat. The government made it clear that they would prosecute him for any violation of federal law they could find to get around the fact that the business itself is not illegal. Back then he wasn't the only one targeted by law enforcement. Other owners of gripe sites ended up in prison for unrelated legal troubles that would not have been exploited by the government had they not been looking for excuses to lock them up. The case should have been challenged on the grounds of selective prosecution, but his lawyer was incompetent. The founder of STD Carriers learned his lesson and has not sent any threatening emails to anyone for nearly 10 years. What Should Be Done Ana Kasparian painted an accurate picture of Congress when it comes to legislation involving technology, "Congress is full of a bunch of, honestly people who can't even legislate on things they understand much less things they don't understand like the internet." Then they discuss their desire for new laws without touching Section 230. Uygur then expressed his desire for someone to bury us with frivolous lawsuits as if they could overwhelm us by forcing us to file so many motions to dismiss that we don't have time for anything else. Some people would lose money on legal fees due to such things, but the owner of STD Carriers is a prolific pro se litigant perfectly capable of getting lawsuits dismissed at the summary judgment phase all by himself. We have already discussed one thing that should be done. Banning employers from doing internet searches of applicants until they determine they are otherwise qualified for the job and are given a chance to explain themselves. Employers should not be able to legally screen applicants by just Googling names and eliminating those with negative information in the search results without further inquiry. They can't do it with criminal records which are more accurate, so why should they be allowed to do it with the internet which is far less reliable? Google took the approach of demoting our sites in search results for personal identifiers. As a result you rarely see direct links to STD Carriers in Google results for names of people. However, because this penalty seems to be a manual one imposed on a per domain basis it is quite easy to circumvent simply by hosting the content in more than one place. Other webmasters have figured this out as well. In some cases it seems they re-brand their sites using new domain names every couple of months. When that happens it can take a few months for the penalty to be applied to the new domain. When the penalty is applied the process repeats. We've also considered moving the main STD Carriers site from its .com TLD to a different one like .net or .org, but we have a little brand recognition so we don't want to take STDCarriers.com down. Normally people redirect visitors from the old one, but that would cause the penalty to follow automatically, so the best we could do would be to leave up a page saying we've moved with a link. We might start using a mirror or two instead of moving the site. We already have a site that syndicates our content which does not appear to be subjected to the penalty at this time despite being a copy of a site that had been penalized. The content and theme were the same with the only difference being the domain name. Domain names cost just under $10 a year and new sites can be added to most hosting packages without incurring additional expenses. In monetary terms it costs basically nothing to syndicate content onto new un-penalized domains on a regular basis. Some have alleged that this practice makes sites "information content providers" under section 230 and therefore liable for statements contained within user generated content (UGC). They argue that syndication amounts to content "development" under Section 230. That simply is not true. Users grant us "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute said Content" and agree that they alone are responsible for the content (https://postalmostanything.com/legal/tou). When we exercise our right to distribute content we do not create or develop it. Under this agreement the author is responsible for the content and we are granted distribution rights of content they alone remain responsible for. The words "create" of "develop" as used in section 230 does not cover copying, displaying, or distributing content. When a newspaper prints copies it is not creating or developing content because the content has already been created and developed. Most of the content is created and developed by the newspaper itself, so they are liable for that content. Other content is created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed by the newspaper. That is the case when they syndicate content from affiliates. An article created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed with proper source attribution effectively passes liability for the statements content within to the original author that created the content and those that helped develop it. If we were to sue The New York Times for libel on the grounds that they falsely accused us of slander, we would not be able to successfully add outlets that copied the article as defendants just because they syndicated the content. Syndication is usually a fully automated task that involves copying content from RSS feeds or APIs. When a machine does something automatically there is usually no person to blame. This can become confusing for users that think a person must have posted something. "CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments." - Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230) Unless the EFF is wrong we have the right to distribute content received through RSS feeds which is the case with our syndication site. The syndication site also monitors social media for people using phrases indicating that they are accusing someone of having a STD or admitting to having one themselves. We are not liable for that either because the content is created and developed elsewhere. Our site simply copies, displays, and distributes. Conclusion There is no such things as a "slander" industry. Cenk Uygur grossly exaggerated his objections with defamatory characterizations of the STDCarriers.com owner. Uygur went beyond simply quoting The New York Times to knowingly crafting lies of his own.
Learn more: The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:48:33 -08:00

Noticed some company using this early 2000s picture of Christina Aguilera wearing a see through white t-shirt revealing that her nipples are pierced as an advertisement on Twitter. It really got me rethinking my upcoming social media strategies. Like maybe I've tried too hard in the past to write quality articles about important issues on my older websites when really I just need to grab people's attention with stuff that looks good. I bet if I tweeted something like this every day I would have tens of thousands of followers real quick. I will stay on the lookout for pics like this one that leave little to the imagination without crossing the line into adult content. Then I can keep the site safe for work while still catering to peoples animal urges.
Learn more: Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

Whitney Houston is Dead, Did Bobby Brown Kill Her?

TrainWreckWatch — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:52:05 -08:00

Whitney Houston was found dead today at the age of 48 and although the exact cause of death is unknown one can't help wonder if Bobby Brown killed her. For those of you who don't know who Bobby Brown is he was Whitney Houston's husband and the man who introduced her to cocaine. Although Bobby Brown is not suspected of personally killing her at the Beverly Hilton where her body was found it would not be surprising given her youth that she died of drug overdose. If she died of a drug overdose it probably was not crack since she always said that crack was whack and people like with money like her can get good cocaine, but she would not have started saying stuff like that had Bobby Brown not introduced her to cocaine in the first place back in the 80s. If the autopsy does in fact show that Whitney Houston died of a drug overdose then it is most likely Bobby Brown's fault because he got her hooked in the first place. Good job Bobby Brown, you sure know how to treat a lady.
Learn more: Whitney Houston is Dead, Did Bobby Brown Kill Her?

Finest Sales person in the world

noherpes — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 23:16:35 -08:00

this girl is not only one of the prettiest women in the world but one of the hardest working and finest sales people I have encountered. Can you believe this magnificent figure? Standing on Hilton Head Beach! Thanks for reading.
Learn more: Finest Sales person in the world

Gary Dourdan Arrested for Battery After Hitting Woman

CelebNut — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:21:41 -08:00

Former CSI star Gary Dourdan was arrested at his house in California after hitting his ex-girlfriend and breaking her nose according to police. He was charged with felony battery before being held on $50,000 bail which he probably posted quickly and easily with money earned throughout his super fabulous life of being a rich celebrity. The cops didn't say who his ex-girlfriend was, but its safe to say that she was probably totally hot until she started sporting the broken nose look. Hopefully by the time she heals Dourdan will learn not to hit women. Police have not listed a motive which leads one to speculate that she may have told him the truth about how bad his music is. It is so bad that you only need to watch a few seconds of his music video to see why actors should not try to sing.
Learn more: Gary Dourdan Arrested for Battery After Hitting Woman

Conrad Murray Persecution Exposes Lack of Due Process

CivilLibertyWatch — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:43:14 -08:00

When Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted of manslaughter for killing Michael Jackson with Propofol today Judge Michael Pastor denied him bail pending appeal in a decision exposing a lack of due process in the California judicial system. His decision to remand Murray deprived him of the right to due process under the law by imposing a sentence on a man who although convicted was not yet sentenced for his crime. A crime that he has the right to appeal while remaining free on bail because he never once missed a court date and like most doctors he earned the right to buy his freedom with his riches if he so pleases. The right of rich or famous people to preferential under the law is a quintessential component of the American dream which took a drastic hit today. Once upon a time people flocked to America in search of a dream. The dream of striking it rich and elevating themselves to a level of superiority making them better than average people. Police, prosecutors, and judges like Michael Pastor are destroying America by making people less motivated to pursue the dream that America once offered. A dream where you can buy yourself out of trouble no matter what you did because you earned the right through years of hard work to pay the price with your wallet instead of your body.
Learn more: Conrad Murray Persecution Exposes Lack of Due Process

Justin Bieber Statutorily Raped & Sued by Mariah Yeater

CelebNut — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:09:53 -07:00

Mariah Yeater is suing Justin Bieber for paternity reasons accusing him of knocking her up while she raped him is a statutory sense. It was just on Fox News and is all over the internets, but nobody has explained why she is not in jail for statutorily raping Justin Bieber since he is 17 and she is 20. The self proclaimed groupie claims to have raped Bieber after one of his concerts when she was an adult and he was a minor child, but his people deny it of course. Even if that is Bieber's kid that bitch should be locked up for raping a minor child.
Learn more: Justin Bieber Statutorily Raped & Sued by Mariah Yeater

Heidi Klum Skinned Alive! Dead Body Halloween Costume

SpookyHarry — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:00 -07:00

Heidi Klum's awesome skinned alive Halloween costume proves that a hot chick can make heads turn positively without dressing like a total slut on Halloween. Her dead body costume was put together so well that it was almost built better for that occasion than god built her for modeling. It made her look like a real corpse recently skinned alive with its eyes still twitching much to the delight of necrophiliacs everywhere.
Learn more: Heidi Klum Skinned Alive! Dead Body Halloween Costume

Michael Jackson: Drug Collection Covers Courtroom Table

TrainWreckWatch — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:13:59 -07:00

Michael Jackson's drug collection covered an entire courtroom table with Propofol vials and pill bottles full of Diazepam, Temazepam, Lorazepam, and other sedatives. When people said that Michael Jackson had drug problem and in house doctor most people would have pictured maybe a bag with a couple bottles or vials in it, but nothing like this. Needless to say Michael Jackson had the hookup. Its starting to look like if he didn't have Conrad Murray he probably would have just bought another doctor and delayed the inevitable. I haven't seen such an intense drug collection since Johnny Depp's briefcase in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Learn more: Michael Jackson: Drug Collection Covers Courtroom Table

Kate Middleton Nippin Through Royal Wedding Dress?

FunnyTVMoments — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:22:11 -07:00

As Kate Middleton entered Westminster Abbey for her royal wedding to Prince William people noticed what looked like nipples through her dress. In videos and photos alike it appears that her nipples were so hard that she was nippin through the dress, but other people believe that her dress was made that way. It really is hard to tell because if those are her nipples they are quite big compared to the rest of her breasts, so its probably just padding. What is so funny about this all the planning and design that goes into a dress for a famous wedding like that. You would think that the designers wouldn't allow for any confusion at all.
Learn more: Kate Middleton Nippin Through Royal Wedding Dress?

What Donald Trump Thinks of Rosie O'Donnell

USAPatriot — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:17:38 -07:00

When he was feuding with Rosie O'Donnell Donald Trump used some great language to describe her. In the video from Entertainment Tonight he calls her a fat slob, wishes that her fails, recommends firing her, ugly, and a loser plus a lot more stuff. Memorable quotes include: "Rosie is a very unattractive person both inside and out" "If I were running The View I would fire Rosie. I mean I'd look her right in that fat ugly face of hers and say Rosie you're fired." "Rosie is a loser"
Learn more: What Donald Trump Thinks of Rosie O'Donnell