Today I noticed a huge wall of spam from UniversalMonk from 2 different accounts and didn't initially think much of it and blocked their communities but more spam came from different communities.
At this point I checked and saw that they had created several communities which then led me down the rabbit hole to discover that their posts had almost entirely covered the new posts page of both sh.itjust.works and lemm.ee. Later on I discovered that they're posting right-wing propaganda and misinformation from breitbart, foxnews you name it.
He's already caused and stirred shit 2 months ago and clearly I can see why now.
At this point it's difficult to believe that UniversalMonk will learn proper netiquette in: not post spamming, being considerate to others, and not sharing right-wing extremist content that no one wants.
Ive found 2 cases mentioning private messages. I would love to see what was actuality said. Ik pms arent secure are they federated only between relevent instances?
Mods from lemmy.world and lemmy.ca have been in these comments saying that yes, it happened and was a TOS violation.
You're free not to believe them. I don't think asking them to expose someone else's private DMs to you to prove it to you is realistic.
Which ones and can i get comment links?
I dont trust anything i verify
I think its pretry sus if ur willing to claim someone has sent abusive messages but not reveal what said abusive messages where. Thats a bit like claiming u have proof of someone stealing your car but will not be providing said proof as u just have to "trust me bro"
https://lemmy.world/comment/14444086
https://lemmy.ca/comment/13865167
What part of "not publishing other people's private communications" doesn't make sense?
This is, in fact, exactly the same way stolen cars work. Someone steals your car, you get the police report, you show it to the insurance company. If you don't have a police report, then they definitely will have questions.
https://ponder.cat/comment/1480007
That's the police report. The insurance company doesn't say, "Well, I won't know it was stolen until I see it for myself. Yes, I know you explained there's a specific reason you can't show it to me, but I just don't trust anything, I verify. The report from the person who investigated it using the extra abilities of their position, and then wrote formally that yes, it was stolen, isn't good enough."