[troad]

> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process

There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.

The thing is, even if you do turn out to be right - which is entirely possible - there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one, but it would have required a humbler approach.

[Aurornis]

> There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts,

I was quoting the actual Reddit post. You were theorizing about recovery emails and other things that were contradicts by the Reddit post.

> and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience.

I do have experience in dealing with account policies for a product that hosted user data and some of the details that go into referring cases to law enforcement. Again, you are the one theorizing to support your story and getting it wrong.

That said, you don’t need to have experience to know that child endangerment cases get referred to law enforcement. This is common sense

> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me

If I’m being honest, this sounds like you’re so resistant to backing down that you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.

It’s pretty clear that you are determined to believe this story is true even after that subreddit’s mods caught on and others here have realized the problems with the story. If you’re determined to believe it then you don’t need to start inventing theories about me personally.

> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one.

I followed the clues in the original post and made a logical case based on them.

All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.

If you’re just trying to attack my construction of the argument for not being convincing enough to you, that seems more like a you problem at this point. I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything if you’re just going to go with this silly “you sound like a child because I didn’t understand your argument the first time” attempt to rebut.

[troad]

> you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing.

I think it's pretty clear that I tried to phrase it as kindly as I possibly could. Not intended as an insult in the slightest, merely a purely subjective observation. You're welcome to disagree, even if you do seem very resistant to extending anyone else the same courtesy?

> All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong.

I don't think I've moved the goalposts once. We're still on the original two claimed inconsistencies, neither of which I find inconsistent.

You're framing this discussion as though it were me that were hellbent on attacking you (for some reason?). I would respectfully suggest that it seems to be you that is irrationally upset over someone not agreeing with you.

> I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything

Awesome. Have a good one! :)

[ffsm8]

Fwiw, you might want to look into "non violent communication" (which is unfortunately named, because people always think they know what it's about, while not actually understanding it whatsoever)

As an uninvolved reader in this thread, your phrasing was definitely done in a way that caused this response from him.

Not at all trying to be mean, and I'm fully aware that this comment I'm writing is also (knowingly) using phrasing which the previously mentioned NVC cautious from, but I only consider it something to be aware of - to understand interactions vs something to adhere to stringently.

[troad]

The problem with this approach is that it implies that I am responsible for how my interlocutor reacts, something I do not and cannot control. (Nor do I feel any need to.) It also presumes the interlocutor is acting entirely in good faith and is interested in reaching consensus, which is not always the case.

Sometimes people respond negatively because of tone and phrasing, but sometimes their response really is about the underlying substantive content of what is being said, no matter how gently. Conversely, at other times, their primary concern may be one of 'face', and the importance of being perceived as 'winning' an exchange, the substance of they may not actually care about at all. I agree with you that thoughtful phrasing is a potent tool, but its power is not unlimited and it cannot fully bridge every gap.

I would venture to suggest that I phrased things about as kindly as I could, in the broader context of an interlocutor who was already treating the discussion as a zero-sum contest. (Note their read of the exchange as my "desperately" wanting to "discredit" them, when I was merely disagreeing.)

[Gander5739]

> If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes.

That is unmistakably an insult, even if you say it's not.

[AlexeyBelov]

As another bystrander: your phrasing and overall participation in this thread was bad. Sorry, but you gotta learn how to take criticism; now it sounds like you just dismiss everything.

[troad]

Idk, I was kinda expecting to be downvoted to oblivion, but these were surprisingly upvoted posts (with the post noting that the other fellow comes off as young being more upvoted than the others). So it seems like there's some support.

Not that I see why that matters? The popularity of an opinion is a very poor proxy for its veracity. Not everything in life is about optics. (One's public image being of especial concern to the young, I might playfully add. :) )

If I seem disagreeable, it's because I'm quite literally disagreeing. You're telling me I'd seem less disagreeable by not disagreeing. Cool? Noted? Obviously? This little pile on strikes me as a fairly hamfisted attempt at peer pressure. It's a bet that I care so much about the social approval of a bunch of anonymous usernames, that I would pretend to have changed my opinion so you can all feel vindicated and we can all feign harmony. It's a very bad bet.

[yongjik]

> there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it.

> The latter is very easy to spot

Well, you know, that's some premium grade irony sitting right there.