>>2118310

Clearly didn't peruse the link or use your brain.

That's okay, from where I'm standing all you have is verbal abuse, image spam and hostility. If you checked my link though - you'd see I have about 4 years worth of research at my back and one hell of a ton of proof I'm not a shill.

To the casual observer, they will have already clicked that link, seen I'm a genuine wearer of tinfoil hats and realised that, in actual fact, you, are the shill.

They will then contrast the quality of my writings - both here and there - to the subpar quality of your, ahem, 'memes' and vitrolic abuse. The kind of abuse a democrat would spew out against a republican for wearing a MAGA hat.

Of course, I strongly suspect the endeavour to 'discredit' the laws of which all people must abide - yourselves included - is an attempt to discourage people initiating legal action against propaganda shills such as yourselves.

I mean, that is what Media Matters loves to abuse against Trump using, what was the quote "pro bono lawyers"? Pro bono lawyers work for both sides, and a no-win no-fee lawyer can smell a goldmine a mile off.

Keep up the abuse.

You're essentially building your own legal case.

(PS: I won't be the one prosecuting. I never prosecute. I always find the criminals have a habit of ending up in jail or resigning or what have you.)

>>2123216

>you never shut up!

Shills always want censorship. Media Matters abuses those who support Trump or those actively exposing the frauds who receive pay but do not work for the people but their own selfish interests.

Haven't you gotten it through your thick skull yet? I never shut up. I believe in freedom of speech, and unlike you, I respect people airing their opinions.

The quality of your opinions however, is much debateable.

Do any of you have anything that isn't?:

A) Image spam (of a poorly chosen meme)?

B) Some sort of butthurt over 'namefagging'?

C) Casting aspersions over legal observations whilst failing to disclose your own legal credentials as armchair lawyer in what can only be described as raw hypocrisy?

D) Some sort of ad hominem.

E) Complaining about length of posts (I bet some of you read Harry Potter though, so I guess you must read selectively).

Do you, say, have any actually constructive retorts as to why those positions are wrong?

So far, not one of you has challenged the mass surveillance or sheer vulnerabilities of technology that would expose your identity, not one of you has declared what rock solid system build that prevents said snooping you're working from, and not one of you has a specific critique on the legal construct that would hold up in any sort of court.

I mean, the clear cut evidence you are shills is you appear not to have even read 8ch.net policy on shills, which is to, err… ignore shills. And to think through what you write. And to not write in anger. All of which points you're failing hard on.

Meanwhile, you're flooding this thread with garbage nonsense posts that offer no real constructive value to the readers.

Every shill ever!

>>2132049

Is this what constitutes as shill hunting these days? Hurl a vague accusation at someone of being 'something something shill' and mention a few magic words like 'George Soros' and poof, the person is instantly guilty?

What is this, CNN?

>I outsourced you.

Seeing as I don't get paid to post, come here of my free time, and I have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about, I'm going to, no.

My money is either you're a shill or you're suffering from some element of schizophrenia, because I've seen people who genuinely believe that everyone they dislike uses sock accounts or some such.

Sock accounts are real, but it doesn't mean everyone uses one.

Only time will tell from further talks if you're a shill or just very paranoid.

>>2141058

Those are good resources, but their techniques have advanced and changed since those days. I wouldn't rely on the older datasets on my own forum for gauging shill behaviours because they employ a diverse variety of tactics.

GCHQ's MO tends to be more legal or technical - legal threats or disrupting the service of a system. USAF are more likely to be the guys involved - dig into Eglin AFB and it's impact on Reddit.

MoD has a psyological warfare unit, and USAF have a cyber warfare unit (the latter is misleading because it involves psyops rather than, say, hacking).

The only way to tell the parties apart is what agendas they support. They will always fall back to national/departmental interests. For example, you won't ever here an MoD shill badmouth the UK military, or if they do, it's half-hearted and with little effort behind it.

It's safe to assume all organisations (government and commercial) employ socks and shills. Even fucking Comcast has bot accounts to spam post the FCC using fraud. I've seen Microsoft shills actively bashing open source, that kind of jazz.

Key point: shills always have a specific, discernable agenda, or a very obvious goal. What the goal is tells you who their employers are, which is your first step for identifying counter-arguments.