If anyone gets a message that looks anything like this
THIS IS NOT ME.
I have no idea who it is, or what the motive is behind it, but I would never openly advertise in this manner, nor do I charge those rates for commissions. If anyone has received a message like this, the blog URL DOES follow back to my blog, but I absolutely did NOT create this, nor am I sending out these messages.
Please ignore these messages and please reblog this post to spread awareness.
Again, no idea who’s doing this or why, but better to get this out now just in case people fall for it.
Thanks everyone!
UPDATE:
So the blog doesn’t lead back to my blog, but one that looks exactly like mine. It’s pretty much a clone of my blog.
Again, this is not me. I would never openly advertise commissions in this manner, and I never ask for money upfront. So please DO NOT FALL FOR THIS.
I’m not the only one being targeted by this person from what I can gather, so be aware of other artists that are being impersonated.
Ever so often, you read in the news about some hatefully racist
message having been written in some school’s washroom or on its website,
only for police investigations to reveal that the messages were
actually written by a black student…. to prove a point, I guess?
Recently, a story of a girl
who had been driven to suicide after receiving a barrage of hate
messages was making the waves and begun an online conversation about
online harassment, only for investigations to reveal that the hateful
messages she had received actually came from her own computer (Yes, she
sent hateful messages to herself, got offended by them and then killed
herself.)
These type of stories are so prevalent these days that they should get their own section in the morning news.
A recent study
by a group of researchers from Florida Atlantic University has shown
that at least 1 out of every 20 Internet users who claim to have been
cyber-bullied were the perpetrators of their own alleged bullying. This
rising trend seems to be most prevalent among teenagers between 12 and
17 years, 6% of whom have cyber bullied themselves.
The research also shows that teenagers who identify as
non-heterosexual (gay, bisexual, asexual, queer, pansexual, demisexual,
etc) are 3 times more likely to cyber-bully themselves than regular
folk.
About 6% of kids from the ages of 12
through 17 have bullied themselves digitally, according to research
conducted by Sameer Hinduja, a professor of criminology at Florida
Atlantic University and co-director of the Cyberbullying Research
Center. “It’s a new phenomenon, and this is definitely happening” for
teens across the U.S., Hinduja said. “We have a tendency to demonize
the aggressor, but in some cases, maybe one out of 20, the aggressor and
target are the same.”
Many [] sites like Tumblr and the now defunct
Formspring also have had an anonymous question feature, which could
allow teens to anonymously send themselves hurtful messages and then
publicly respond. Researchers are calling this behavior “digital
self-harm.” Teens who identified as non-heterosexual were three times
more likely to bully themselves online, while victims of cyberbullying
were 12 times more likely to cyberbully themselves.
A strong link already exists between physical
self-harm and suicide attempts, and researchers are concerned that the
same connection could exist with digital self-harm. “It could betray
suicidal tendencies and lead to suicidal behavior down the line if it’s
not addressed,” Hinduja said. This is concerning because teen suicide
rates have been steadily climbing over the past decade. The suicide rate
for girls ages 15-19 doubled from 2007 to 2015, reaching its highest
point in 40 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
👌👌👌👌
I will never, for as long as I live, understand this phenomena. Why would anyone intentionally do something that would make them look like the biggest fool on the planet if they were caught? Why would anyone want to waste their time manufacturing their own harassment?? Just…WHY?? I DO NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND. You could be spending that precious time listening to music, watching a movie, or actually going out on an adventure.
Like jeez, if you hate yourself that badly, just go eat some Cracklin’ Oat Bran or something. Or work retail.
>
Why would anyone intentionally do something that would make them look like the biggest fool on the planet if they were caught?
Because they don’t expect to get caught. And even when they do get caught, Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome kicks in and people ignore the faker instead of admitting they were fools.
>
Why would anyone want to waste their time manufacturing their own harassment??
Victimhood is power, especially to SJWs. That’s why they try to monopolize it.
Also, people (especially girls) are taught that crying wolf or playing the damsel in distress is an effective strategy for getting people to pay attention to you and/or to boost your own ego by getting others to “help”. Unfortunately, this pattern is often self-sabotaging- and many people, especially those with more life experience, can see right through it as well.
The whole net neutrality discussion seems to be focusing on download speeds and access to particular services, but does anybody remember back in 2006 when AOL got caught blocking people from sending or receiving emails that expressed criticism of AOL? There was no sign that it was happening, and the emails would appear to be delivered – AOL’s mail servers would even report a normal “accepted for delivery” status code – but they’d just never show up in the recipient’s inbox. Or how about the incident a year earlier where Telus imposed fake service outages for websites expressing support for the
Telecommunications Workers Union? Again, no indication that any blocking was taking place: just a error page falsely claiming the affected sites were down.
Under the proposed deregulations, this sort of thing would be explicitly permitted, and we know it’s possible because it’s been done. Now consider how much more communication happens via the Internet in 2017 than in 2005/2006. It’s not even email or websites; big chunks of the telephone network now pass through ISP-mediated VOIP channels, and those conversations would likewise be targetable by faked outages.
Like, this isn’t some dystopian sci-fi scenario; we’re talking about horseshit that major ISPs were getting up to on the sly over a decade ago, and are now about to be told can be engaged in without regulatory penalty.
This happened? That’s serious.
By the way, that kind of scenario is how censorship in China works. They don’t throw up a page saying the content is illegal, they just route it in such a way that the packets go around in circles and time out. ISPs could easily start pulling all kinds of tricks to demote things they don’t like – they have the option of not routing it correctly, slowing the bandwidth to a crawl, or just stopping the request and sending back a 404. We need to keep Net Neutrality.
Oh, yeah, it happened. The cited incidents aren’t even the half of it – they’re just a couple of the better known ones.
For example, there was the time that Comcast blocked Boston-area subscribers from accessing their GMail inboxes, and when folks called their support line to complain, they falsely claimed that it was a technical issue on Google’s end and tried to sell them a Comcast email account.
Or the time that Madison River Communications ended up getting fined for their VOIP-metering scheme when it turned out that they were interfering with 911 calls made by users in their service area.
Or the time Verizon started selectively blocking text messages sent by pro-choice advocacy groups, even to recipients who’d explicitly opted into them.
Again, none of this is hypothetical – this isn’t stuff we imagine major telecoms will do in the absence of strong net neutrality protections, but stuff they already have done, and in many cases only stopped due to regulatory pressure at the federal level.
PiraticOctopus 