>>2351587

Take a moment to sit down and creatively come up with as many ways to censor discussion as you can. Using only a post as your medium.

Because they have this mapped out and weaponized to a tee. They're all here, with every tactic being deployed.

My bans stopped them at the door, before they could really do a lot of damage to our research space. What they do, is censor us, in as many ways as they can.

Letting them in = Censorship itself.

That's why taking a proactive approach did our research better, than the nightmare it currently is.

>>2352033

Statistically speaking it's an anomaly.

They had poisoned <1% of the hashs I collected, at 1,200+.

VPN companies would be idiots to clump their nodes on the same /24 range and only ranges were hit - which guaranteed a good level of safety to individual exit nodes.

Also, their network resources have a limit.

They claim otherwise to invoke the very knee-jerk defeatism incompetent people revel in.

>>2352048

And yes, that means <12 exit nodes that actual anons used were poisoned by shills.

Considering there were thousands banned, these are great hit/loss ratios.

>>2352055

I didn't.

Consider how effective it would be to blame your adversary for what you do yourself - simultaneously sowing seeds of doubt to discredit them and blanket your own actions from recourse.

It's quite brilliant.

>>2352066

I have not been doing that - Correct.

The convenience is too tantalizing, I don't blame the clowns for riding it so hard.

>>2352093

Do you know how easy it is to acquire the flags of your enemy on an anonymous image board?

You clearly haven't meme'd ever.

>>2352107

The onus of proof is on the accuser, no?

I'm still waiting for the proof of 'hundreds of patriots banned' myself.