AnonTalk's scorecard unfairly low

Post Reply

AnonTalk's scorecard unfairly low

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:06 pm

If you look at the scorecard for, it's dark red, and the comments indicate the general mindset of the ratings.

AnonTalk is a free, anonymous discussion board, dedicated to free speech. Anyone can say absolutely anything. Some of the topics can be a little extreme, but nothing on the site is illegal! People seem to think that their morals are everyone's morals, and will rate accordingly.
If you see the site's Legal page, it says:

This service/Web site is 100% legal to use and host in all even remotely sane jurisdictions. Its servers have never and will never do evil things, such as sending, relaying or initiating (any kind of) spam or participating in any way in any kind of attack. ... If you don't like controversial topics being discussed, just don't visit this Web site instead of trying to ruin things for those of us who want to talk about them. All you will accomplish is some wasted time and making us even more convinced that this place is very important and must live on at any cost. Do everyone a favour and go create some beautiful art or something else creative instead, or, better yet, start hanging here and create/contribute in topics that interest you.

The comments page is filled with lies and general slander against the website. It would be far too much effort to contact every single one of them individually, but I'll cover the majority here.

tobias104: Many Pedophiles, performs Denial of Service attacks on other websites.
The website is about free speech, this includes everyone. Unless vital, I'm not going to include any part of future comments that references the site's content, unless absolutely vital. The site has never outright initiated a DDoS attack anyone, or any site.

zipdavidson: has been known to redirect users to malicious pages containing viruses, hosted off a home computer, does NOT respect privacy in any way, known to spam other popular imageboard websites, and known to plan/carry out DDoS attacks.
Banned users now get redirected to an on-site page that explains that they're banned, and why they're banned. Nothing else. Likewise, I won't be including this particular complaint any more unless vital. It is one of the most privacy-loving sites on the internet; your identities are completely anonymous! If you become a regular, your IP is never even logged in the first place. It has never initiated spam or DDoS attacks.

ramoncina: There are links to child pornography sites. Many pedophiles gather in here to exchange this kind of material. Also performs Denial of Service attacks and spams other sites.
The site is about FREE SPEECH. It does not host any images, videos, files, or anything that may be illegal in any civilized jurisdiction. Has never DDoS'd, has never spammed.

GrantZ: Crappy privacy. Everyone posting can be easily identified. Regurarilly spams and DDoSes other sites. Avoid it like the pest.
No one can be easily identified. The most broad any identification gets is a letter in a topic. Has never, etc.

mskusu: Lots of pedophilic content that is not moderated at all.
It is, in fact, heavily moderated for post clarity and quality. They seem to think "moderation" applies to forcing ideals on everyone. It is, again, about free speech.

sorryranga94: Disgusting Pedophile rubbish, AVOID AT ALL COSTS! Enyone involved with this sick site should be banned from the internets.
Again, they seem to assume everyone has the exact same ethics as them. It is subjective and not actually about the site at all.

halcy: This website should be considered unsafe in every of the given categories - It meticulously tracks users via IP and cookies, redirects to browser exploit websites, contains links to child porn and horrible, horrible material, and is spammed all over such websites as wikipedia. AVOID if you value your sanity.
As far as tracking goes, the cookies are some of the least malicious. It only keeps your identity (for the site) and some dashboard settings. Your IP is only attached to posts for spam prevention (it is, by far, a LOT less intrusive than most forum systems), and aren't tracked at all if you become a regular. Not a single page on the site redirects off-site to anywhere but Wikipedia, and off-site news, neither of which are malicious. It is legal, your morals aren't, has never spammed, etc.

I hope some of the ratings and comments are given a second thought, and the outright slander is reconsidered promptly.

Posts: 4912
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm


Post by MysteryFCM » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:01 pm

Hate to break it to you but, whilst I'm all for free speech, if the site is allowing peadophiles and links to such (can't and won't check the site, UK law prevents such if there's so much as a hint of CP or related material), then the site IMHO, should be shut down - this CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be covered under the guise of free speech.

"The site has never outright initiated a DDoS attack anyone, or any site."

So they have done so indirectly? And you think this is okay?

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group / hpHosts /


ellipsis goes here

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:11 pm

It is allowing anyone to post. It does not contain any illegal links. This site is entirely legal in all jurisdictions, including yours - unless the UK believes in "thought crimes".

By "directly", I mean that the users have initiated DDoS attacks when other sites started a spam or DDoS raid themselves. I'm not saying it's okay, but the administrator has no means of controlling this. "Directly" refers to the administrator or site itself.

Posts: 3940
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:08 am

but the administrator has no means of controlling this

Post by evilfantasy » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:27 pm

Or does he speak against or try to stop it. He encourages it by doing nothing.

Respectable sites get respectable ratings. It's that simple.


He has spoken out numerous

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:49 pm

He has spoken out numerous times against it. Would you like the links? He discourages it as much as possible, people will do as they do.

Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:10 pm

There's a screenshot linked

Post by amishrabbit » Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:35 pm

There's a screenshot linked to this comment:

There appear to be a number of posted topics with subject lines openly relating to pedophilia, and racism and hate speech.

Yuck. I support your right for your users to say what you want, but I don't feel I can honestly rate the site other than red for the child-related sexual content and racism.


Real screenshot

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:57 pm

That screenshot is edited and outdated, it is not an accurate representation of the site as a whole. Here's a real screenshot that I took a few seconds ago:
(Excuse the darkness, I'm using a different theme)

Yes, it still contains some topics that you've mentioned, but on the whole, you can see it for what it is. A real, intelligent, anonymous, free-speech discussion board. Racists and pedophiles have opinions too, and whether or not you or me disagree with them does not mean they should be silenced.



Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:13 pm

"Racists and pedophiles have opinions too, and whether or not you or me disagree with them does not mean they should be silenced."
Do you see the irony in that statement?

WOT users have opinions too!

And as far as silencing goes, a WOT rating DOES NOT silence any person. If a WOT user CHOOSES (and I'm sure you would endorse "Freedom of Choice") to place trust in a WOT rating rather than your website, can you argue with that?

Are you applying a double standard? Is it OK for racists and pedophiles to have opinions, but not WOT raters and commenters?

I'll reiterate . . . WOT does not silence your web site or anyone on it. It merely rates it based on the opinions of WOT raters and commenters. Racists and pedophiles are free to express their opinions on your web site. Would you silence the opinions of WOT?

A user is free to heed the WOT rating . . . or not.


A few points

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:34 pm

First of all: I am not the owner of I'm a user. I just love the site and hate to see it downgraded.

Secondly: I agree with you 100%, but you misunderstand my purpose for saying that. I am not concerned about what some people may think, as that is the nature of the site. I am concerned about the outright lies of the actions about the site.

I couldn't care less if it was commented into oblivion by offended users of WOT, but it has innumerable mistruths about the site, and I don't want someone thinking the site was not appropriate because of those reasons. If every user on WOT and then some wants to give it a big red circle, that's fine, but I don't want anyone thinking the site is outright dangerous. It is completely safe.


An opinion is a lie?

Post by Guest » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:58 pm

"I am concerned about the outright lies of the actions about the site"

How can an opinion, which is what a comment is . . . or a rating for that matter . . . be a "lie"?

Granted, some of the comments are stated as "fact", but the discriminating user would know that it is really an opinion.

So I take it you're trying to "protect" the "undiscriminating" user . . . the one who takes all comments as gospel, without making any judgement for him/her self?

Arguing that comments are lies when the person making that comment believes it to be true is like arguing religious beliefs . . . an exercise in futility.

The crux of the issue here is that comments are opinions, not facts.

If one wants to argue that a comment is untrue (which is impossible since it's an opinion), then one could just as well argue that a green comment is untrue. Arguing either way is absurd. Just make a comment that you believe the red comments are flawed, state why, and be done with it. (And if I recall correctly, that was what was done.) Users are then free to judge either the green or red comments as accurate.

The fact that the majority of comments are red just means that the majority of the opinions are unfavorable . . . likewise the ratings. Ratings and comments are not intrinsically facts, but only insofar as a user believes them in his/her own judgement.

You said it yourself in your original post. You referred to a comment as a "mindset". A "mindset" is hardly a fact, except to the person holding that "mindset".

Example of a fact: There are twelve inches in a foot . . . at least in the USA and on this planet.

Another example: Black is darker than white.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests