Our Think Atheist twitter account is being abused

Homepage Forums Announcements Our Think Atheist twitter account is being abused

This topic contains 16 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Rebel 3 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1904

    Rebel
    Keymaster

    You might remember that i already informed you about it. Think Atheist twitter account https://twitter.com/thinkatheist has been hacked. I came to know about it at the start of this year.

    One day i noticed that he has created an account on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/thinkatheist and asking for donations. I immediately sent an email to inform all members on Feb 17, 2015. We had discussion in detail about it on old site http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/topic-to-discuss-stolen-think-atheist-twitter-account.

    We had a bit discussion with the unknown hacker about it before he blocked me and other members. He claimed that it is his personal account but did not reveal his identity. Nobody knows who is running this account. This account has been associated with Think Atheist since day 1 https://web.archive.org/web/20081201085158/http://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist.

    Why he stole the account?

    It looks like he is a looser and can’t make ends meet through ethical sources.

    1. First he started asking donations but when i informed members about it he had to delete Patreon link https://www.patreon.com/thinkatheist.
    2. He is using it to sell his t-shirts https://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist/status/579495008069427200. He is even using Adult content to sell his products. I will not go into detail. If you need more info, please contact me via http://atheistzone.com/contact-page/
    3. Please check image below. He has pinned a tweet where he is asking followers to use his coupon to to get 10% discount. Like you most of the followers are unaware that he is affiliated with the company. He gets commission when a customer uses his promo code at check out.

    harempants

    How he is abusing the account:

    1. As you know that twitter account has been associated with Think Atheist since day 1. Many members still think that twitter account is associated with thinkatheist.com. He is posting controversial photos that are damaging not only our image but also other atheists. Here are a few.

    https://twitter.com/thinkatheist/status/558434190468059137,

    https://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist/status/588473063148130304

    https://twitter.com/thinkatheist/status/567192922303377409,

    https://twitter.com/ThinkAtheist/status/588502017271672833

    Unfortunately such controversial photos help him get more followers. Controversy = More followers = more coupons = more commission.

    If a follower argues with him, he treats him very badly.

    Please report him. I have created a topic to describe how to report a twitter account http://atheistzone.com/forums/topic/think-atheist/.

    Thanks for your time.

    #1948

    Unseen
    Participant

    I think Twitter doesn’t allow poser accounts. While they may argue that the words “think atheist” is a bit too generic for us to claim, you could argue that they wouldn’t allow someone to claim Planned Parenthood or The American Catholic church and pose to represent those organizations. We are just smaller. I don’t know how responsive Twitter is, but they could certainly tell him to choose another Twitter name or be shut down.

    In the meantime, rather than taking people who land on ThinkAtheist.com to the AtheistZone.com homepage, take them to a page explaining that if they came here from Twitter, they should know that we are not associated with the Think Atheist Twitter page and deplore its contents. And of course also have a link to our homepage.

    #1949

    thinkatheist
    Participant

    Edit by Umar: The photo he has posted is just wasting bandwith of our users. Here is the link if anybody wants to see.

    https://uppolsci100.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/alicor.jpg

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by  Rebel.
    #1950

    Davis
    Participant

    I reported it. Hopefully more people do as well. (Doesn’t hurt that some of us have been blocked for no good reason).

    #1953

    Rebel
    Keymaster

    @thinkatheist aka thief

    Can we know your name?

    Could you not find a photo more than 6 mb? It will take even more time to load.

    #1954

    thinkatheist
    Participant

    @thinkatheist aka thief

    Can we know your name?

    Could you not find a photo more than 6 mb? It will take even more time to load.

    libel
    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

    See also: defamation libel per se public figure slander

    Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153#ixzz3hZtYFlzn

    #1955

    Rebel
    Keymaster

    @thinkatheist

    Now the thief is threatening us?

    #1956

    thinkatheist
    Participant

    @thinkatheist

    Now the thief is threatening us?

    libel
    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

    See also: defamation libel per se public figure slander

    Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153#ixzz3hZtYFlzn

    #1957

    Rebel
    Keymaster

    @thinkatheist

    Nice to see you here. I was not expecting.

    I have banned him. He has nothing to say or defend. He came here just to threaten us.

    #1961

    Davis
    Participant

    It’s pretty sad that some sour-grapes user has not only hijacked the twitter account, and is likely raising money for dubious reasons…what’s saddest is that the sour-grapes user has decided to come onto the site here, rub it in our faces and troll us. This is what the anonymity of the internet does. It allows people who don’t have to show themselves to troll, appropriate and misuse whatever they are lucky or clever enough to get their hands on.

    #1965

    Strega
    Moderator

    @davis. Probably the same mentality that thought it was clever to steal the Twitter account in the first place. Sad and pitiful really. Can’t imagine what the world looks like through the Twitter-thief’a glasses. Not pretty, I’d imagine.

    #1966

    Rebel
    Keymaster

    I reported it. Hopefully more people do as well. (Doesn’t hurt that some of us have been blocked for no good reason).

    Thanks Davis!

    I think Twitter doesn’t allow poser accounts. While they may argue that the words “think atheist” is a bit too generic for us to claim, you could argue that they wouldn’t allow someone to claim Planned Parenthood or The American Catholic church and pose to represent those organizations. We are just smaller. I don’t know how responsive Twitter is, but they could certainly tell him to choose another Twitter name or be shut down.

    Good advice! I shall give it a try. Until now Twitter Support has not been very responsive.

    In the meantime, rather than taking people who land on ThinkAtheist.com to the AtheistZone.com homepage, take them to a page explaining that if they came here from Twitter, they should know that we are not associated with the Think Atheist Twitter page and deplore its contents. And of course also have a link to our homepage.

    Now we have 2 topics about stolen account. TA HomePage is redirected to 1 of the topics that explains how to report it http://atheistzone.com/forums/topic/think-atheist/.

    #1970

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    I am not a twitter user (I am both a twitter and faceborg refusenik), but I wish you-all (Standard English *really* needs a plural second person pronoun, or maybe we should bring “thou” back and restore “you” to that role) the best of luck in resolving this. This individual sounds like a real piece of work. (And for you non-native speakers, that’s not a compliment!)

    #2029

    Gregg R Thomas
    Participant

    I’m thinking about buying the 50 shades tee-shirt, I really like that one. I think it will go over great out here under the Bible Belt Buckle. 🙂

    #2043

    BeckyL
    Participant

    In the meantime, rather than taking people who land on ThinkAtheist.com to the AtheistZone.com homepage, take them to a page explaining that if they came here from Twitter, they should know that we are not associated with the Think Atheist Twitter page and deplore its contents. And of course also have a link to our homepage.

    I think this is the best way to deal with it. If you decide you want a Twitter account, maybe you could use AtheistZone since that is the name of the new site?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.