Embed Notice

@Archivist@social.linux.pizza @stripey@meow.social @report_press@mastodon.social Ok I read the table wrong in my initial post, the 124 amount is used to make a different point. The total amount of "problematic" statements mentioned by the report is 178.

Where are you getting the number 250 from?

I also I do not agree with only 7 statements being retracted. If one statement in a category has been retracted, he should be given the benefit of the doubt that all the other statements in the same category should be retracted as well.

So if you really want to do this mathematically I would say that given some benefit of the doubt the retractions count for 108 out of 178 mentioned statements.

The remaining 70 statements that the 3 categories that he report calls "Support for CSAM/bestiality/necrophilia".

The names of these categories are really misleading, because they are mostly just about possession of material, not about support for the actual acts of abusing children/animals/corpses.