"Don't Be So Evil You Come to the Attention of the New York Times".
Federal authorities on Monday arrested a website operator accused of selling counterfeit eyeglasses who subjected customers to foul-mouthed tirades when they complained about the quality of the goods. “GO FUCK YOURSELF COCKSUCKER ... I pee on your negative [comments]” Vitaly Borker, 34, of Brooklyn, New York, allegedly wrote …
"Don't Be So Evil You Come to the Attention of the New York Times".
“several firearms and ammunition,” not listed in the charges and has nothing to do with the story. We love shock factor! let's throw in some useless quote about firearms!!
At first I figured the author was a Brit.... but instead he is a West coast type... makes enough sense.
comments about firearms commonly serve to demonize a person who is being portrayed as violent and dangerous to build the story...
is that this allows the entry of the "ATF", otherwise known as the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Control Division...or the Secret Service. This allows the introduction of much more serious charges.
That the three are related along with presidential security is perhaps the most perfect illustration of political logic I've ever seen.
An Arnie-type 'west coast type'?
An east coast type west coast type (If Brooklyn is still where it used to be)
Hope life is nasty at the Iron bar Hotel for this moron.
...his fellow inmates can repeatedly step on his glasses!
... biting the people who think being an arse is a good idea.
I reckon the 'guns n ammo' comment was definitely shock factor, although it's New York City where only the criminals and the cops have guns.
"...Google responded to the episode by announcing changes to its search algorithm that, in effect stops rewarding people for being evil."
Does this mean Go_ogle is going to censor itself then?
You mention he had several firearms and ammunition. So what? Was he charged with an offence with firearms?
I love reading the reg and the great articles but this one makes a statement which means nothing. I have guns and ammunition (in the UK) and yet it is totally legal and above board.
Please either state the problem with him holding guns or remove that comment please. Guns get a bad enough reputation and without any good reason.
It's just a fact of the case as reported. It's neutral information. You'd have to take it up with the cops.
Of course guns have a bad reputation, considering many of the people who use them, and what they're designed to do. You might have to man up and take that on and prove that not everyone has the same attitude/psychosis. Or you could go on a killing spree. That would also show them. Either/or.
Guns don't kill people.
I kill people.
You employ the argument of ignorance (no offence but you do). Out of the countless people in the civilised world who own guns and shoot, there is a tiny portion of people which you refer to. Of that small number of criminals only some of them use guns for criminal activity.
So the argument you use is backwards at the least. The benefits of guns and the activities where guns are used are ignored by you. Your statement-
"You might have to man up and take that on and prove that not everyone has the same attitude/psychosis"
Is also vastly wrong. As I have stated, most gun owners dont have that attitude/psychosis but you ignore such facts by stating I could go on a killing spree. I guess you would have all guns removed? All cars as well? Or do you only attack the sensationalised evils?
For a positive shift I recommend you get some education of the topic by visiting your local gun clubs and see what it is really like. We aint all nutters. Just as we aint all petrol heads. They account for a very small number which you only hear about.
The illegal firearms possession (given NYC's gun laws the odds are extremely high that they are illegal) charges will get added later on. They will have a wonderful "piling on" effect especially for the cyber stalking and death threat charges. Nothing increases your prison sentence quite like committing a crime when in possession of illegal firearms.
He wasn't in possession of a firearm. He owned them. The intent of the consideration of a firearm during the commission of a crime is the highly aggravated and violent aspect of it since one is essentially threatening everyone in the vicinity.
This fellow never waved a gun at anyone, but he does have cyberstalking, interstate threats, and mail and wire fraud. I know mail and wire are serious felonies, I would guess the previous two are as well. He stands to do more time in consecutive sentences for those charges...at least more than walking into a gas station and waving a pistol around demanding cash.
I would guess the charge for owning a pistol without a permit was not serious enough for the prosecutor to include in his arraignment, or including it would open up a search and seizure angle that could get the whole case dismissed. Unless it is included in his arraignment, it IS irrelevant.
For his wife, not him. In the NYT article, they said she has a child. And now, she will have to find a way to live while her arse of a husband is in jail.
Stupid reaction, really, but that's the first one that came.
I actually think this is the most sane reaction I've read in the comments so far.
Of course, everyone else is merely whining about how the reputation of the pure, untarnished, innocent firearm is being dragged through the mud by people presumably infringing everyone else's Nth amendment right to arm themselves and overthrow the government (in their own private fantasy), while failing to see the motivation one might have to investigate whether someone threatening others might be able to ratchet up that threat to seriously endanger those other people.
What it should say is, "Google has made changes to the search algorithm so that they can artificially raise or lower search results based on a criteria of our choice." So, the governent calls and says, "this is terrorist website, lower its search results to 0, we know you can so it so if you don't you are supporting terrorism." etc etc.
I saw the article about this company in the New York Times, which featured the complaint of a woman who allegedly ordered eyeglasses, and was denied a refund when he couldn't supply the brand ordered, but was instead charged a higher price for a different brand.
If he is convicted, will all the customers receive full refunds? I suspect not, as there is nowhere for all that money to come from. It's a pity, therefore, that the authorities didn't investigate this more aggressively following the very first consumer complaint, so that this would have been halted before debts in excess of his capacity to repay could be run up.
"Google responded to the episode by announcing changes to its search algorithm that, in effect stops rewarding people for being evil."
Does that mean that if you type Google into Google that Google is no longer the top result?
NYC does allow for the private ownership of handguns, so unless it's actually been stated somewhere that he didn't have a license I guess he won't be facing any additional charges for this.
If convicted though presumably his license will be revoked.
you just gave me an enormously negative experience. Maybe they won't google you third rate U.K. yellow journalists anymore.
Somehow my enormous trust in Google and its hidden processes is simply nonexistent.
When it comes to a threat.
It's one thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" when all you have is a beebee gun at most.
Another thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" whilst having access to an actual firearm with real bullets that go through people making lots of blood and such.
One is an empty threat, the other can be considered to be a genuine threat of real physical violence, with a gun.
And guns are bad mmm'kay
"GO FUCK YOURSELF COCKSUCKER ... I pee on your negative [...]"
Pee? PEE? <sigh>
Excessive negative comments will lower your search result rating. Hmm... Ok.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017