Episode: 3615
Title: HPR3615: I am a troll and I'm trolling HPR, trolling HPR, trolling HPR.
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr3615/hpr3615.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-25 02:12:49

---

This is Hacker Public Radio Episode 3,615 for Friday 10 June 2022.
Today's show is entitled, I am a troll and I'm trolling HPR trolling HPR trolling HPR.
It is hosted by Ken Fallon and is about 27 minutes long.
It carries an explicit flag. The summary is, we got trolled and what we're going to do about it.
Hi everybody, my name is Ken Fallon and you're listening to another episode of Hacker Public Radio.
So on today's show, Dave and I are going to read out the mailless thread that we didn't cover
in the community news. However, before we get to that, I want to inform you
that we now know that the hosting question has been deliberately trolling HPR.
I know this because they told me and when I asked them to stop, they went on to explain that they were
a gadfly and had to look that one up. Anyway, whatever the claim to be, the end effect for us is
trolling. Both myself and Josh had some unnecessarily stressful weeks as a result of somebody's
idea of a joke. Anyway, that said, there have been some positives about this as well.
Again, we see the HPR community has its best, providing support for us and reasoned arguments
and how to go forward. We've also identified a possible loophole in governments and we've
addressed that with a special advisory committee, aka the auditors, team of volunteers from the mail
list. And when we do come up with a way of dealing with this trolling issue, we will also have
a mechanism to deal with the DMCA takedown requests or any other complaints that we happen to get.
So, how do we deal with this trolling issue? Well, it's easy. We just ignore them, hard to put
it another way. Stay calm and go on. Now, while this works well for comments, it's not going to be
enough when the tactic is to deliberately targeting of HPR. So quite a lot of effort has gone
into this particular attack here. First, there was a building up of trust by posting several
technical shows into the feed. And we are familiar with this particular tactic as Spamers use
it quite a lot when they try to spam us on the forums. Then the host submitted a series of shows
that will cause HPR legal issues. More details of that will be in the rest of the show. And then
they go on to not responding to questions presumably in the hope that we will delete the show ourselves.
However, by moving out the show to a later date in the queue, we were able to avoid claims of
censorship. And the host eventually removed the problem show of their own accord. So, then what
attack vector are they going to use next? And how do we deal with that? Well, I have no idea.
And how we deal with it is also not going to be easy. So, but we'll have to cross that bridge
when we come to it. We do, however, need to tackle the risky situation to the host,
generators and hosting providers of having content available on our website that might have
legal problems. So, I suggest that we do the absolute minimum. We continue to post
shows as normal without listening to them without editing them. If we do get a complaint,
then the generators will continue to contact the host as normal. Should the host be unavailable,
uncooperative or disagree, then the generators can either remove the show to the backup queue
or hide it depending on the severity of the complaint. In all cases, the generators will
keep the special advisory committee, the auditor team of volunteers in the loop,
to make sure everything is above board. And then we'll bring us to the community news, etc.
and the community themselves can decide what the best course of action to take is. So, with that
said, I would like to propose the following change to our policies, both related to HackerPublicRadio.org,
stuff you need to know.php with spaces being underscores. Hashtag not moderated. So,
currently we have the text. We do not vet, edit, moderate or in any way a sensor, any of the audio
you submit, no change there. We trust you to do that. So, what we propose is, we do not vet, edit
moderator, any way a sensor, the audio you submit. We trust you not to upload anything that will
harm HPR. With the addition of the line, any material that was reported as harming HPR may be
unlisted until such a time as the situation is resolved. So, I'll be posting this to the
mailist as well for discussion and critique. And with that, I'll switch you back to the reading
of the mailist. Hi everybody, my name is Ken Fallon and you're listening to another episode of
HackerPublicRadio. Long time no speak, Dave. Absolutely, yeah, it's been, it seems like,
oh, myriads of seconds. Things that we didn't discuss in the community news that we were going to
talk about here. Moving a show out again, let's do that on first get there. So, you may remember,
and I'll give you a link to back in March, mailist discussion about moving a show out, etc, etc.
and then that's where the whole concept of auditors came out. We had some problems with,
we didn't go into detail at the time, but I wanted to give you the whole span of the doubts,
first to say that what we posted show, I was looking at a considerable fine in a year in prison.
In the end, the host got back to us to the side to post it somewhere else and it turns out the
other platform did not post the content of my region for the exact same reasons. So now we have
another show again, what's same content from the same person, but in this case,
brings us other legal issues, violating the as well as violating the terms and conditions
of the hosting providers. The host is not responding again and presumably they're on camping.
Horror policy on censorship states, we do not fit out of modern fire in any way,
sensory audio and it continues to say, we trust you to do that. While we have given this host
the benefit of the doubt the first time, I feel that by immediately posting another show like this,
they are betraying the trust of the juniors, hosting providers, patrons and the wider community.
As you can imagine, even having this show in the future feed is a bit risky and we cannot allow
us to hit the main feed until our entire HPE community has time to decide how to proceed and we'll
bring up this on the next community news show, allowing discussions as to how we deal with the stuff
going forward. Up until now, it has not been necessary, but at last, now apparently it is. So
once again, asking you to allow me to move the show out so the host is time to get back to me.
CC list has been included in all correspondence and the CC list is not listed there, but it is
the admins, the juniors, they have myself. I asked some volunteers from the auditors,
some of the HPE community from this mailing list and the people who founded and paid for HPR
and our host will provide our people. So what do we do? Do we go through all of the responses
or do you have a summary of what just happened? I think going through everything
would have some arguments for it, but there's quite a lot of things that could be summarised like
a whole bunch of yeses a bit later on. So if we can condense what we're saying a wee bit,
that would be good, I think. Okay, you do Claudios, I'll do mine, and then we'll...
So Claudio says, I know it's rather simplistic and might not be the best option, but I'm tossing
it out there, a three strikes policy. Maybe this time give the benefit of the doubt with
stone warning the next time it will not be allowed, just to thought.
Hi Claudios from me. Now we're talking about the content of these shows only, I have no problem
with the holes posting other shows that do not bring the law down most, while the hosts enjoy
the advantage and anonymity, the janitors, hosting providers and patrons do not. The justice system
knows where we live and will not afford us the luxury of three strikes.
So, Nigel Verity says, in principle, I'm a firm believer of the principle I disagree vehemently
with what you say, but defend absolutely your right to say it, whatever the precise wording was.
However, we have to accept that the real world does not follow that approach to its ultimate
conclusion. It's easy to take the view, publish and be damned when it is Ken risking possibly a
year inside rather than us. The reality of genuinely unrestricted no-holds-barred free speech is
actually quite sobering. Try where thought is free for an hour or an hour or two late at night,
GMT, to hear an example of what surely nobody would want HBR to become. There's a link to
what I assume is a podcast or a radio show or something. The dilemma would seem to be that HBR
can only protect itself against legally unacceptable material if somebody listens to every show
between submission and publication to the stream, but that runs contrary to the HBR censorship policy.
Janik Krut says, is that JWP? Yes, sure again. Like I said, just push it to the end of the queue
twice and a roll though. Maybe three strikes and you're out. Kevin O'Brien says, I think moving
it out is fine, but at some point you have to consider that maybe this person is trying to cause
trouble. Back when I talked statistics I used to saying once this happens to us, twice is co-incidence
and three times is enemy action. I'd move this one out, but I would also make it clear that once more
and this person shows, person shows will no longer be accepted on HBR.
Mike Ray says, in my humble opinion, any show that can do stuff that might again get the
janitor's into trouble, legally, should be canned. Any repeat of the founder should be barred.
Obviously, I don't know about the content, but I do know is anything like this that I created
and which came to the attention of my employees, employers would get me the sack, Mike.
And another from Mike, and I've just read the other comments, Voltaire does not matter when one strike
would get Ken landed in prison. As much as we hate it, there are rules about stuff like using
copyrighted material or acts of slander or defamation on public media. The only people to get away
with breaking the law repeatedly are either Donald Trump or Conservative MPs and ministers,
and they have deep pockets. Next one is 5am 8 on 9. We cannot really offer insight or an educated
response without actual information. I still do not know the issue with the last show and
proves that she definitely come with an explanation. This is all way too big and the amount of
discussion around when we will be screening, just allowing shows from Brian and I reply.
The issue with the previous show was Holocaust denial, which is illegal in the Netherlands,
and I give a trans-Google translation section. Article 137C1, he who is publicly orally or
in writing or image deliberately insult a group of people because of their race, their religion,
religion or belief, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation, or their physical,
psychological or mental disability shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than one year
or a fine of the third category, which is a big one. Links there,
lumpely the host removed the show as my wife and I were not willing to risk prosecution or
suffer the associated repudational damage that could come from by even being seen to associate
with the show and in response to it's all way too big. At this stage what I'm asking is to move
out the show until the community can decide what to do. Screening everything may be the way of the
future though, don't like it, then if you live in the EU you can contact your representative
and this is linking to a requirement by the EU that all content that's published within the EU
at the pre-vetted and if you are in Europe and you disagree with that please contact your European
commissioner. And now we're going, putting down my official janitor mob of office for a moment.
Do you have your official janitor mob office? It's just over there in the bucket.
Exactly. As I see it, janitors should not have the right to censor a show. Do you agree with that?
Indeed, but janitors do have the right not to pause the show. Do you feel about that, Dave?
Well, it seems to follow from the from the discussion because the freedom for for you
or indeed me to go to jail as a consequence of it is not one that we want to exercise.
Yeah, some things I might do, but you know I need buy-in from my family for that and I'll say there
are certain things but if whatever it is you're saying and I feel that I'm willing to suffer
the consequence of whatever that may be then yeah that's a conversation I'll have but I have the
right not to pause the show if I don't want to. So how do we balance these come back to the thingy?
My own personal opinion is that the system you have in place for the last nearly 17 years
is working well enough. We get the shows, we can't pause them without vetting them. If somebody
complains and the claim seems to be valid then the janitor should be able to nullify everybody
and postpone this release until such a time as immunity can decide what to do. Mike says,
in my humble opinion, any host guilty of Holocaust and Earl should be banned outright. No questions
not just because they could land the janitor in prisons. Of course they could then just pop up
again under another name. So according to Thunderbird's threading Brian Navarette is the next
Yes, I'm confused. I'm confused. Is it the Ukraine stuff in the show that's an issue or is
there Holocaust denial stuff I missed or is it calling the system D guy a creep at the problem?
Seems like whatever it is, the show is on the website and the law of the lowland has already been
violated. That's Brian in Ohio, I'd forgotten. Sorry. Yep, and I reply, the issue with the previous
show was Holocaust denial, which is illegal in the Netherlands. The show in the cum has been deemed by
the hosting providers to violate the terms and conditions of their US based ISP. I cannot speak
to what that is. So rather than debate, the issue can we, people, please focus on the only
questions being asked. Can we move the show out for later days? It's simply yes or no, it will
suffice. And then we go into a bunch of responses to that point. I think do Jean says yes.
Go do Miranda says yes. x1101 says yes. Nigel Verity says that's four yeses.
Sporous says yes. Yes, yes. Serious. Yes. And Mike Ray says, do I do him? No, don't move the show,
just don't post it. We don't want Holocaust denial as on HBO. Brian says yes.
DNT says, I say yes to move the show again. I wonder if it could make sense to restrict the
future feed to the subscribers of this or another list somehow. That may mitigate the legal risk
of posting shows blindly. Not sure what is going from having a completely open future feed anyway.
And perhaps this list would be private enough without being really restricted.
Hey, DNT Ken and Ultras, I formed Ken on the forum. I live in Germany and Ken lives in the
end of the Netherlands. Both places have some pretty hard laws about saying the Holocaust did not
happen. So I verify that if the show is posted, which it wasn't, from a legal form that a legal
criminal event could happen. So just post it out of writing to the calendar until we're back.
We hear back. But again, that was from the previous show, but that's fine.
There was some confusion about which show we were talking about a lot. Yeah, yeah. Thank you,
them so much. Yeah, yeah. It got quite complex. We got a reply to an earlier thing,
well, to the yes, no question, I think, from Andrew Conway, who says, can you have my
approval for moving this show out? If he keeps recurring and burns too much time, then please say
and we can discuss how to deal with that. And John Doe says, if this is the show about system D,
I don't find anything that would be problematic legally, short of keywords, which have taken
out context, caused some tripping up. This into the episode clears those misconceptions.
Mainstream media, for example, is often used as a dog whistle or a specific ethnic group,
but in this context, context, yes, I don't know what that to be the case. That may violate
policy spreading propaganda about the situation in Ukraine and understandably problematic on the part
of a hosting provider, but unlikely to cause issue in terms of prison time for the host.
And I replied to that, as I stated here, given links 1, 2, 3, 4, as I stated here and here again,
the issue of Holocaust denial was the previous show and not this one. Link again, the show was
removed from consent of the host, so you would not be able to listen to that. At HPR, the host
was again contacted us to inform us that they may remove the show, that we may remove the show,
and they may submit an edited version later in the month. The show is now removed, but will
be still discussed at the community news, with a view to formalize any procedure for dealing with
complaints, ticked on quests. And then Carl Chave said, my curiosity, having been peaked by this
thread, I listed the subject show twice before it vaporised. I listened to it twice because I was
working on other things at the same time and thought it was. I must have missed the obviously
illegal bit the first time through. Even after the second lesson, I'm still not sure what it was
that there was something I have no doubt, just not sure whether the fact that I couldn't pick it
out is a negative reflection of me or the law. To which you reply, we now have another show from
the same host that has content that would bring us other legal issues, as well as violating the
terms and conditions of our hosting providers. That's what I said in my original post. The legal
concerns that were raised pertain to UK law, and the terms of service pertains refers to US law.
So there are a few other ones out that we missed. Sporus, Mike Ray.
Anyway, Sporus says I'll read it out of sequence. The solutions seem simple enough to make
Ken and the other host, Janissar's Patrons fabulously wealthy so the law is no consequences.
Barring the committee and implementing that, I'd say censorship for the sake of censorship is one
thing, but not publishing something that would land the responsible party in legal hot waters as
another. I feel that Ken and others have actually in good fit in the past and would likely say that
they regularly not agree with things creators have said on their shows. The beginnings of HBR was
before my time in the community, but I don't believe Ken or others agreed that they'd take the
legal bullets for creators as part of volunteering to help HBR run. I would be interested in knowing
more particulars of how the content of these shows were legal issues for the HBR managers,
but from what I've seen, how things are handled, I could have some level of trust that they aren't
blowing smoke, the claims that are made. I think the three strikes we'll have some merges. It's
probably work more discussion to the community on how exactly it would be worth it and implemented
since we asked Coast to South Central themselves, how would we make sure we aren't putting out shows
that cause legal troubles without having some broad board to listen to them all and vet them.
You'd likely need a legal counsel to know for sure. It seems like a possible slippery slope
where not publishing things because of fear of reprisals, even if you couldn't be illegal.
That said, I'm fairly certain that some locales there wouldn't be legal issues with the publisher
of the content, but also not a lawyer. I know that people who are part of the HBR encompass many
legal jurisdictions that will likely work in many different ways. Now, that's a very valid point.
I know that there have been many debates regarding US law and papal arms or publishers and who
is responsible. Typically, these debates have been regarding social media. Unfortunately,
reality that I have to remind myself often is that we may be legal for some people is not going
to be for others, just because you may be able to legally do something where you are just to make
it fair to require those in another jurisdiction to be left holding the bag when the cops come
a calling. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, this area like Maddie where I don't feel I'm
able to offer a solution, but would like to say that I appreciate how these sticker issues tend
to be handled by the HG community and staff. While I don't know that I've ever seen
everyone a hundred percent agree, there's almost always a level of respect to the discourse
and the Mixman Quad Proud to have even a small connection with the community. Thank you.
All to have made and continue to make HPR what it is, sports.
That's great. I like that. Yeah. Moving out show again from Mike Ray. Have you got that one or
shall I do it? I'll do this one. Oh, yeah. Yes, I'm just puzzled. I'm getting lost.
I'm just going to the I'm linked them from the main archive page and then just open all the tabs.
So, okay, so I'm not reading and I'm not using Thunderbird. In my humble opinion,
that she strikes rule is unbreakable as can suggest maybe not in so many words, one strike could
land you all the janitors in prison or find out of existence. And this is definitely not acceptable
as a risk. Even more so for those who are providing hosting free of charge, there's not
such a ship to remove something that would destroy their lives. It's just sensible. The janitors
do not owe us a debt of care. The freedom of speech has hard limits. Anyone who thinks it does
not just living in a club, Google that. So, no, it's a verity. Yeah, it applies to that saying,
having read the varied and valid points put forward, I'm wondering if we're making this more
difficult than necessary. At the moment, it seems we all trust Ken's judgment on what constitutes a
show that would be inappropriate and illegal to distribute, but are concerned that this amounts
for constraint on free speech, which as a general principle, we all support. New organisations like
the BBC, CNN, NDW, AFP, etc. don't host hardcore porn, even though doing so is not illegal in
their home jurisdictions. This is not censorship, per se. It's based on editorial judgment or what
is and is not appropriate to the interests of their target audience. This community is not free
public radio or open public radio, either which might suggest a free for all in terms of who
submits shows. For their subject and who submits shows their subject and who listens.
The hacker label does present a useful boundary for determining what is suitable content
for an audience with the interests of hackers before the issue of free speech even arises.
In the case of the BBC, etc. we never know what items they decide not to host. We can improve
considerably on that by offering editorial or territorial question mark, transparency,
declaring at the monthly roundup if a show has been pulled and an explanation.
If the show in question were promoting terrorism or pedophilia, say the appropriate
ness for a hacker forum would be sufficient reason before the question of legality even rises.
A rises. If anyone feels the power of withdrawal is being used too frequently, then there would be
an opportunity to make such misgivings known. So, HPR, this is some guy in the internet. I,
some guy in the internet hereby authorize what Mr. Kahn found to settle the matter in legal content
twice as measured by on-name tools in a way that will pull the system stains. Well,
being of HPR, hack about the real community, some issues require a referee and others
and undertaker to take what measures necessary to preserve the community platform content. That is
all. Okay, so let's move on to the other topic I want to discuss and that was reserve queue. I
don't know, can we really have this topic now or should we record yet another show?
It's, yeah, it's way off track. I think it might be better to
to, okay, tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of Hacker Public Radio.
You have been listening to Hacker Public Radio at Hacker Public Radio does work. Today's show was
contributed by a HPR listener like yourself. If you ever thought of recording podcasts,
you click on our contribute link to find out how easy it really is. Hosting for HPR has been
kindly provided by an honesthost.com, the internet archive and our sings.net. On the Sadois
Today's show is released on their creative commons, attribution, 4.0 international license.
