RationalWiki talk:RationalMedia Foundation
The censorship situation at RationalWiki[edit]
- This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation.
Per RationalWiki talk:RationalWiki Foundation/Archive7:
The nonprofit attorney has confirmed that the Oregon Plan will work. Killing the RationalWiki Foundation will make it impossible to go after it, and its old Board members would not be able to be sued as individuals in New Mexico based on the Foundation's collective past activities. As the attorney put it, it would be like trying to sue a dead person. The RWF's intellectual property assets (the wiki and social media stuff) will be transferred to the new Oregon-based organization and will be handled under the jurisdiction and laws of Oregon, which will give the new Board the ability to fight back against further legal threats.
Back in July, there was a controversy over people discussing this topic, with one Board member/moderator threatening to censor the accounts of all who dared mention it. I was then told by someone knowledgeable that lawyers were being consulted to confirm the "Oregon Plan" was valid. It's been well over a month and nothing has been reported. Since a month is plenty of time for a lawyer to give a response to this question, I am going to assume the original understanding of the situation stands. And the original understanding is this: the only thing preventing RationalWiki from discussing topics that were censored as a result of lawsuit settlements and (a) secret agreement(s) made by the dead New Mexico RationalWiki Foundation, is that two New Mexico RationalWiki Foundation Board members are also Board members of the Oregon RationalMedia Foundation. But once they are no longer Board members, they will no longer be in legal jeopardy for anything published on RationalWiki and so the Oregon organization will no longer be bound by agreements and settlements made by the dead organization. Would anybody like to dispute this? Pinkerite (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- This issue is still being discussed with legal counsel. When we are able to comment publicly, we will do so. Thanks for your patience. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know I am looking like a picky pain in arse on this, and to be honest don't care - part of the reasons RW got into that quagmire was partly that nobody was calling out issues. In this case, that there a butt-load of details which do need to be fleshed out [for example, what if someone posts a WIGO entry which details the verbotens?] What's more, I am concerned that if we have individual mods etc going about editing/removing stuff on an onwards basis without any details it may be seen as 'RW having editing' which means the S230 defence that we're just a platform becomes invalid. Lastly, I would ask that you ask the lawyer to outline exactly how RW editors are and are not protected from libel etc and then post it in our help section. I believe that between the ghouls and the general American situation a lot of folks would benefit from this clarification/reassurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- REDACTED FOR LEGAL REASONS Spud (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- As you are [to my knowledge] neither a) a American lawyer or b) privy to the exact nature of the agreements agreed on to call off the dogs you cannot say for sure what would or not be within the allowances of those agreements [which is different to 'the law' per se]. However, you do raise a good 'ask lawyer' point; to get a reassurance that in general terms doing 'succession planning' etc is okay. If we need to have a fundraiser to pay to get these reassurances etc, so be it.
- REDACTED FOR LEGAL REASONS Spud (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know I am looking like a picky pain in arse on this, and to be honest don't care - part of the reasons RW got into that quagmire was partly that nobody was calling out issues. In this case, that there a butt-load of details which do need to be fleshed out [for example, what if someone posts a WIGO entry which details the verbotens?] What's more, I am concerned that if we have individual mods etc going about editing/removing stuff on an onwards basis without any details it may be seen as 'RW having editing' which means the S230 defence that we're just a platform becomes invalid. Lastly, I would ask that you ask the lawyer to outline exactly how RW editors are and are not protected from libel etc and then post it in our help section. I believe that between the ghouls and the general American situation a lot of folks would benefit from this clarification/reassurance. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I personally feel talking about 'post-Troika' RW right now is pointless, mainly on the basis we haven't really got the 'Troika RW' onto a firm foundation yet. For example, any updates on that lawfare insurance which was mentioned? I know you're all a secretive cabal now but keeping us in the loop is general good practice because it means we can help you do these things. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I do not know the exact terms of the agreement, except through inference based on the actions the Board has taken, which involves censoring topics, and even censoring references to topics, all of which appear to be related to race pseudoscience. But to be sure, with a secret agreement made with an adversary that appears to be one or more neo-Nazi ghouls, anything is possible. Pinkerite (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to discuss the way forward, since I believe it's highly unlikely that a new organization, RationalMedia Foundation, would be legally bound by agreements made by a DEAD organization. I will be writing about this whole affair when the time seems right - first on Pinkerite then on Medium, and will continue to attempt to get professional journalists interested. So if anybody here thinks this censorship issue will be swept under the rug by forbidding discussions of it on RationalWiki, that's not happening. It is absolutely outrageous what was done to RationalWiki by SLAPP lawsuits and secret agreements. Considering WHO is responsible (via the lawsuits) and who is likely responsible (via the secret agreement(s)) for the legal intimidation, it's especially important to make this situation well-known. Anybody who gives a damn about free speech will agree. Pinkerite (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Jason Wilson who sometimes publishes articles for The Guardian has said that he is going to author an article on the RationalWiki lawsuits and the far-right race realist people. What his deadline is I am unsure, it could be anytime in the next 5 months. The only other magazines interested in this are Mother Jones and the Undark Magazine so it might be worth trying to push them to cover the story. I reached out to over 30 publications, nobody else is interested in covering the story (mostly out of fear of being attacked by these extremists or threatened with litigation). 176.56.39.198 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- REDACTED FOR LEGAL REASONS. Spud (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well Jonathan Kane, you haven't been on here for over a month and now you're so concerned about who interviews who about RationalWiki and the SLAPP lawsuits and secret agreements. Why are you so concerned about this? Pinkerite (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- The main reason I'm concerned about it is that you've uploaded a huge number of images (over 50), all of which are still hosted on this site, that violate the legal settlements and/or the owner's copyrights. These include two images copyrighted to parties in the settlements, on which you falsely claimed to own the copyright, and included a notice that says, I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain, [1] [2] which would be illegal even if the legal settlements hadn't happened.
- Well Jonathan Kane, you haven't been on here for over a month and now you're so concerned about who interviews who about RationalWiki and the SLAPP lawsuits and secret agreements. Why are you so concerned about this? Pinkerite (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- REDACTED FOR LEGAL REASONS. Spud (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Jason Wilson who sometimes publishes articles for The Guardian has said that he is going to author an article on the RationalWiki lawsuits and the far-right race realist people. What his deadline is I am unsure, it could be anytime in the next 5 months. The only other magazines interested in this are Mother Jones and the Undark Magazine so it might be worth trying to push them to cover the story. I reached out to over 30 publications, nobody else is interested in covering the story (mostly out of fear of being attacked by these extremists or threatened with litigation). 176.56.39.198 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to discuss the way forward, since I believe it's highly unlikely that a new organization, RationalMedia Foundation, would be legally bound by agreements made by a DEAD organization. I will be writing about this whole affair when the time seems right - first on Pinkerite then on Medium, and will continue to attempt to get professional journalists interested. So if anybody here thinks this censorship issue will be swept under the rug by forbidding discussions of it on RationalWiki, that's not happening. It is absolutely outrageous what was done to RationalWiki by SLAPP lawsuits and secret agreements. Considering WHO is responsible (via the lawsuits) and who is likely responsible (via the secret agreement(s)) for the legal intimidation, it's especially important to make this situation well-known. Anybody who gives a damn about free speech will agree. Pinkerite (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Stop with your sleaze. It does not say I own the copyright, both items you refer to say "This image does not have an image copyright notice." But why is any of that your interest, exactly? Are you claiming to speak as a representative of the plaintiffs in the legal settlements with New Mexico RationalWiki? Pinkerite (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- What I quoted from the notices you included in both of those images, stating that you own their copyrights and are now releasing them into the public domain, is a verbatim quote. Tetrapteryx (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Stop with your sleaze. It does not say I own the copyright, both items you refer to say "This image does not have an image copyright notice." But why is any of that your interest, exactly? Are you claiming to speak as a representative of the plaintiffs in the legal settlements with New Mexico RationalWiki? Pinkerite (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I also quoted what's on the page. I am not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear that the final word on both items is the big box that says "This image does not have an image copyright notice." You appear to be prospecting this wiki to try to find something to make a legal issue, and you're doing it on behalf of the racist ghouls who used SLAPP lawsuits (and probably secret agreements) to attack the now-dead organization registered in New Mexico. I was not involved on the lawsuits or secret agreements and had no say in what was removed as part of the legal and secret settlements. But again, it's obvious that Jonathan Kane is operating on behalf of people out to destroy this new Rational Wiki organization and it would be damn foolish to allow him to continue here as an editor. He should be banned completely. Pinkerite (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've been in contact with RW's board about this, and it seems there is a glitch preventing these images from being deleted. RationalWiki apparently does not have the technical ability to fully comply with the settlements, and you're the main reason this situation exists. Stabby the Misanthrope can provide more detail, as he is who discussed this situation with me.
- The parties to RW's settlements have seriously considered taking further legal action against RW for its hosting of these images, but they appear to have decided against it, because now that their articles are deleted RW isn't causing them a lot of harm anymore. However, if [redacted] gets Jason Wilson to publish an article attacking them over their lawsuits, there is a possibility that situation could change. The people calling for a new round attacks on the plaintiffs don't seem to have an understanding how precarious RationalWiki's situation currently is with respect to this issue, and I think their actions are extremely risky.
- Also, @Bongolian @KarmaPolice is Pinkerite permitted to remove both of your comments from this talk page, as she did here? Tetrapteryx (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I did not intentionally remove anybody's comments - why the hell would I even want to?. You are clearly operating in bad faith as some kind of representative of plaintiffs against a dead organization, and threatening the new Rational Wiki based on hysterical claims and transparent bullshit. I recommend that Jonathan Kane/Tetraperyx be banned from this Oregon Rational Wiki, he clearly is doing his best to harm the wiki and its parent organization. Pinkerite (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Jonathan Kane and his future media spotlight[edit]
If an article is written in the mainstream press about this issue, I certainly hope it features all this evidence where Jonathan Kane, known associate of ISIR Board member REDACTED, makes threats on behalf of plaintiffs of settled lawsuits and apparently also on behalf of parties involved in secret settlements concerning a now-dead organization. Pinkerite (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are we allowed to mention her name on this wiki now? I'd thought she was one of the people we can't talk about anymore. Tetrapteryx (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wow you don't miss a sleazy trick do you? And who is "we"? You have made it clear you are an adversary of RationalWiki. Which is why you should be banned. If an article is written in the mainstream presss you won't be able to prevent the truth from coming out in the United States thanks to the First Amendment, you censorious creep. Just as one of the people you claim to represent was unable to keep the New York Times from referring to him as a racist. It's funny, isn't it, how that NYTimes article was much more damning of the racist than anything in RationalWiki, yet he chose to sue RationalWiki and not the New York Times. Why, it's as if it was never about the content of the article at all. Seriously how do you sleep at night? Pinkerite (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- It is very helpful that you are putting this all in the public record though. That you, Jonathan Kane, are the mouthpiece of plaintiffs who sued and settled with a dead organization. Do they pay you for your efforts? I assume you would not make a clown of yourself in public like this without a nice payday, but I guess people have done crazier things. But a profile about the motivations of a non-lawyer individual such as yourself, jumping into a publicly-available forum to operate as some kind of bizarre extra-legal counsel, especially on behalf of one individual that the New York Times has characterized as "racist" and implied was inspirational to a mass-murderer, would make absolutely fascinating reading. Pinkerite (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, to be absolutely clear: I've already discussed all of this with RW's board in July. They don't seem to dispute that you're violating both the legal settlements and the plaintiffs' copyrights (and you've added a few more violations of the settlements in your posts above). The reason those images are still online isn't that they've bought into your self-righteous claims about your violations not mattering, but that they apparently lack the technical ability to delete your uploads. Tetrapteryx (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's obvious you have decided to harass me, Jonathan Kane, and apparently on behalf of plaintiffs who have already settled with a now-dead organization. I hope this targeted harassment makes it into any future articles written about the great RationalWiki SLAPP affair of 2025. And to RationalWiki people of good faith - this is another reason why Jonathan Kane should be banned from this RationalWiki. Pinkerite (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- And exactly HOW am I "violating both the legal settlements and the plaintiffs copyrights and added a few more violations"? Since I am not party to the "legal settlements" how am I to know what the terms are? I am certainly not stopping anybody from removing anything, especially if it is a legal violation. And if it can't be removed because of a technical glitch, how is that my fault? You seem to be attempting to defame me, Jonathan Kane. Pinkerite (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- And if your goal is to have me banned from Rational Wiki based on your trumped-up bullshit, I've barely contributed to this Rational Wiki for the past month or so. I'm waiting to see what happens. As long as Rational Wiki is controlled by racist ghouls and those claiming to speak on their behalf like you, Rational Wiki is less than useless - it is actively harmful and certainly not worth contributing to. I certainly hope somebody interviews me for the future articles about the bullshit SLAPP suits and the bullshit artists like you. Pinkerite (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Enough![edit]
I have uprated the protection of this page to mod and above for 9h to halt this conversation.
I have also filed a coop case regarding one of the persons involved in it.
I am also not a happy camper that you removed mine and Bongolian's comment @Pinkerite, even if you believed they were off-topic. The correct method would have been to put them in a 'tangent' collapse-box. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I did not remove your comments - or if I did, it was not done intentionally - I don't know if it happened due to some kind of editing conflict or what, but I was not even aware of your or Bongolian's comments until Tetrapteryx accused me of removing them. I have no issue with your commentaries. Pinkerite (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the coop case. Jonathan Kane/Tetrapteryx's comments create an atmosphere of intimidation so that editors might think they are at legal risk for good-faith edits. I have always been suspicious of Jonathan Kane/Tetrapteryx's motivations at RationalWiki, given his history as a Wikipedia editor, but thanks to this incident, he's now removed all doubts - he is a bad actor, hostile to RationalWiki and working for or with hard-core racists who would like nothing better than to destroy RationalWiki - or if they can't destroy it, control it to the point where it can say nothing in opposition to the race pseudoscience network that every single one of the plaintiffs in the recent cases have a connection to. Pinkerite (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)