It's nice to see that when DEFCON says "Don't support rapists" they really mean it.

@evacide '''Iozzo previously told TechCrunch that his interactions with Epstein were “limited to business opportunities that never materialized, as well as discussion of the markets and emerging technologies,” and that he “never observed nor participated in any illegal activity or behavior.”'''

So just communicating with a convicted rapist is enough to get banned?

@meph @evacide The various late night TV hosts are in the Epstein files, but only because their names were mentioned in emails to or from Epstein, as in "did you see Colbert last night?". So no, you can't just ban anyone whose name appears. But anyone shown doing business with or schmoozing Epstein after his conviction should be shunned.

@evacide fuck yeah!

@dynom @evacide downplaying what Jeffrey Epstein was to "convicted rapist" is like calling Facebook a "website where people talk". Don't be a jerkoff.

@siv @evacide it's not about Epstein, it's about the people who interacted with him who are penalised.

The general rules are not about if you're a rapist or a "worse" rapist.

I'm all for banning assholes, but criminalising by association is a slippery slope?

@dynom @evacide Have fun dying on that hill. Be sure to bring those concerns to your coworkers, friends, family, and Mossad handler. I'm sure they will be well received by at least one of those categories.

@siv @evacide
https://legalclarity.org/what-does-guilty-by-association-mean/

'''This is a social judgment, not a formal accusation based on direct involvement.'''

https://elawdaily.com/guilt-by-association-what-it-means-and-why-its-a-problem/#Examples_of_Guilt_by_Association

'''Just because you associate with someone who has made a mistake or done something wrong doesn’t mean you share their views or actions. '''

@FuturisticRobert Haha, Space Hitler, love it XD

@SamantazFox I wish I could claim that as my own creation. It's too on point.

@dynom @evacide :trollpet: AI profile pic.