Time to back up, export, and leave if you're on mstdn.cahttps://ottawa.place/@stephanie/116267088513251309
-
@evdelen @mayintoronto Yeah. It will be interesting to see the details of this case once it comes to light.
I do not understand why an organization would try to reputationally destroy Chad like this though - what's the motive? 🤨
@javensbukan @evdelen idk, it's being reported through the CBC. In previous years, I'd say that CBC did their research, but it's so hard to trust them anymore.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but allegations like that? I'd be inclined to leave.
-
@the5thColumnist @mayintoronto
My email said Sunday.
@angela_underscore @mayintoronto
OOPS , so it did
-
@angela_underscore @mayintoronto
OOPS , so it did
@the5thColumnist @mayintoronto
I was wondering if there were two meetings.
-
@the5thColumnist @mayintoronto
I was wondering if there were two meetings.
@angela_underscore @mayintoronto
no I was just daft
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topicR relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@javensbukan @evdelen idk, it's being reported through the CBC. In previous years, I'd say that CBC did their research, but it's so hard to trust them anymore.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but allegations like that? I'd be inclined to leave.
It's on the CBC News site, yes, but it's a Court Docket Reporting piece, not a piece of investigative journalism.
A CBC reporter who's on the courts beat noticed an interesting case on the docket and reported it to the public.
Besides attempting to contact involved parties, and a successful contact of an unaffiliated third-party with broad level familiarity into the issue of Neighbourhood Leagues (Cllr. Tang), the author doesn't investigate the allegations or add any details, just "this group accuses that person of something".
In the days of old, this would have been called a Beat Article, they're purpose is to keep the public informed about the goings on within certain institutions, like the Courts, rather than, say, a breaking news investigative article.
-
@javensbukan @evdelen idk, it's being reported through the CBC. In previous years, I'd say that CBC did their research, but it's so hard to trust them anymore.
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but allegations like that? I'd be inclined to leave.
@mayintoronto @javensbukan @evdelen for me it’s not about the allegations, the court can handle it.
But it’s important to know the largest fediverse instance in Canada is very centralized.
It’s not a separate non profit, all the servers are in his home and under his name (assets), he pays all the bills and collect donations under his name.
So to know that he’s being sued for 300K is important info. It’s all the same bucket. If he loses or have big lawyer fees, this is all the same entity.
-
@mayintoronto @javensbukan @evdelen for me it’s not about the allegations, the court can handle it.
But it’s important to know the largest fediverse instance in Canada is very centralized.
It’s not a separate non profit, all the servers are in his home and under his name (assets), he pays all the bills and collect donations under his name.
So to know that he’s being sued for 300K is important info. It’s all the same bucket. If he loses or have big lawyer fees, this is all the same entity.
@jerome @mayintoronto @javensbukan
You have a point there, and we have the good fortune of a forum being available to answer some of our questions / make some decisions around these issues, specifically the State of the Instance meet up tomorrow.
Personally, if there is a call for volunteers for replicating and distributing the infrastructure I believe I have the skills and resources to volunteer: a fibre connection, backup power, some of the technical skills...
And, institutionally, I agree that it might be time to have a discussion around setting up the mstdn.ca organization as a not-for-profit entity with a volunteer board and some of the safeguards I mentioned before, like 3 signature expenditures.
This is part of the evolution of such communities!
I look forward to the discussion tomorrow!
-
Time to back up, export, and leave if you're on mstdn.ca
https://ottawa.place/@stephanie/116267088513251309If you can't see the above post, here's the CBC article about the person who owns and runs the server.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/inglewood-league-lawsuit-missing-funds-9.7136933Migration tips:
https://zeroes.ca/@StaceyCornelius/115967726861839689@mayintoronto That was not on my bingo card for 2026.
My account there is long gone (early August 2024), so I don’t have any effective position to take.
It just doesn’t look good reputationally for that instance. Not talking about the risks on that instance’s finances, being hosted on the admin’s personal property.
Best of luck to them.
-
Time to back up, export, and leave if you're on mstdn.ca
https://ottawa.place/@stephanie/116267088513251309If you can't see the above post, here's the CBC article about the person who owns and runs the server.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/inglewood-league-lawsuit-missing-funds-9.7136933Migration tips:
https://zeroes.ca/@StaceyCornelius/115967726861839689@mayintoronto That was not on my bingo card for 2026.
My account there is long gone (early August 2024), so I don’t have any effective position to take.
Just glad I moved away when I did.
-
holy shit
oh he's toast
his servers are toast
what a fuckhead
AND this asswipe is giving mastodon a bad name:
"Ohman had previously been interviewed by CBC News for his involvement in fundraising and the social media platform Mastodon. CBC News has not been able to reach him for comment on this story."
hey Chad Ohman:
@benroyce @mayintoronto He called the cops on me & then lied about it all.
https://beige.party/@PhoenixSerenity/116268551857561967 -
@benroyce @mayintoronto He called the cops on me & then lied about it all.
https://beige.party/@PhoenixSerenity/116268551857561967@PhoenixSerenity @mayintoronto
often times people who are feeling anxious about covering up a crime will lash out at others over perceived, not real, transgressions.
that's horrible you went through that
you must have been so confused as to why
well, now you know
it was projection
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
@PhoenixSerenity @mayintoronto
often times people who are feeling anxious about covering up a crime will lash out at others over perceived, not real, transgressions.
that's horrible you went through that
you must have been so confused as to why
well, now you know
it was projection
@benroyce @mayintoronto I knew exactly why & that's why I was super enraged, afterwards. Almost everyone here knew how much I love/caregive/look after my family & almost everyone here felt heartbroken & angry over how my Dad & my family was treated on night Dad died. Almost everyone here knew I was a targeted longtime POC disabled woman activist & been arrested more than 100X. He sent cops to my house - knowing all of that. It wasn't private, it was public. It was white violence on our family. I don't forgive him or any white folks who chose to believe his lying scumbucket ass.
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
Are you his jailor?
I'm so tired of people pretending that "guilty in a court of law" is the only way we're allowed to have opinions about people's wrongdoing. Courts make findings about the guilt of someone in the eyes of the state justice system. I.e., the state and it's ability to imprison you is the ONLY entity that is bound to a court judgement.
So I'll say it clearly, it doesn't matter that a court hasn't made a finding yet, yes you're still allowed to have an opinion about someone's behaviour and have consequences for that.
To claim otherwise is nothing more than using a false claim (that ONLY a court can pass judgement) as justification for not having an opinion.
-
@angela_underscore @mayintoronto
no I was just daft
@the5thColumnist @mayintoronto
Email dated at 0006h Eastern time, yesterday’s 2206h in Edmonton announced:
Mastodon Canada:
State of the Instance Spring 2026
PostponementWe are postponing our Spring 2026 State of the Instance scheduled for tomorrow.
A new date and time will be provided soon.
-
Are you his jailor?
I'm so tired of people pretending that "guilty in a court of law" is the only way we're allowed to have opinions about people's wrongdoing. Courts make findings about the guilt of someone in the eyes of the state justice system. I.e., the state and it's ability to imprison you is the ONLY entity that is bound to a court judgement.
So I'll say it clearly, it doesn't matter that a court hasn't made a finding yet, yes you're still allowed to have an opinion about someone's behaviour and have consequences for that.
To claim otherwise is nothing more than using a false claim (that ONLY a court can pass judgement) as justification for not having an opinion.
The civil courts are a process (there hasn't been a criminal charge laid in the matter so let's set that aside for now).
The process is as follows:
The plaintiff files and serves a Statement of Claim, in other words The Allegation.
After that, the defendant files a Statement of Defense and/or a Counter Claim.
That second step hasn't happened yet.
Even if we accept your premise that it doesn't matter what the courts decide, don't you think it's fair to at least hear the other side of the story?
-
The civil courts are a process (there hasn't been a criminal charge laid in the matter so let's set that aside for now).
The process is as follows:
The plaintiff files and serves a Statement of Claim, in other words The Allegation.
After that, the defendant files a Statement of Defense and/or a Counter Claim.
That second step hasn't happened yet.
Even if we accept your premise that it doesn't matter what the courts decide, don't you think it's fair to at least hear the other side of the story?
Fair, yes, required, no. But it's entirely beside the point. If you seek to hold an opinion, (even if that opinion is "we should wait to decide") justifying that opinion by "the courts haven't decided", you are using a logical fallacy.
"I want to hear both sides of the argument" is a reasonable statement.
"The courts haven't adjudicated it so I am not allowed to have an opinion" isn't.
I recognize that you did add "(or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims)" which is better than most people do, but it was still added as an aside, rather than the main point. You explicitly said you withhold your condemnation or moving instances until a finding of fact is made.
Frankly, I will admit that you're getting from me a lot of my frustration for frequently hearing this opinion regarding much worse and far clearer allegations, so maybe I'm a bit more frustrated by this, than is justified by the actual situation, but the fundamental point remains, this is a common logical fallacy that almost nobody recognizes.
-
Fair, yes, required, no. But it's entirely beside the point. If you seek to hold an opinion, (even if that opinion is "we should wait to decide") justifying that opinion by "the courts haven't decided", you are using a logical fallacy.
"I want to hear both sides of the argument" is a reasonable statement.
"The courts haven't adjudicated it so I am not allowed to have an opinion" isn't.
I recognize that you did add "(or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims)" which is better than most people do, but it was still added as an aside, rather than the main point. You explicitly said you withhold your condemnation or moving instances until a finding of fact is made.
Frankly, I will admit that you're getting from me a lot of my frustration for frequently hearing this opinion regarding much worse and far clearer allegations, so maybe I'm a bit more frustrated by this, than is justified by the actual situation, but the fundamental point remains, this is a common logical fallacy that almost nobody recognizes.
I think what we're doing right now is hashing out the meaning and/or emphasis of a parenthetical more then discussing the main point.
A parenthetical is a word, phrase, or clause inserted into a sentence to add non-essential information, clarification, or afterthoughts without altering the sentence’s basic meaning.
Perhaps you're correct that I should have put more emphasis on that point by not making it a parenthetical, but especially given your frank admission, I think we're mostly splitting hairs.
I agree with your overall premise that, yes, we don't *need* to wait until a court has made a decision to, ourselves, make a judgment.
My ultimate point with this situation, and I believe you'd agree with me given your frank admissions, is simply that we shouldn't rush to judgment based merely on an accusation, but that we should hold our judgment until we at least hear both sides of the story.
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
@evdelen @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston My opinion is that he is a POS, pending further investigation. And if we truly want Mastodon to be a better community we should listen to people when they call out bad actors.
-
L limebar@mastodon.social shared this topic
-
@evdelen @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston My opinion is that he is a POS, pending further investigation. And if we truly want Mastodon to be a better community we should listen to people when they call out bad actors.
@retrotechshop @mayintoronto @javensbukan @PhoenixSerenity @danbrotherston
If all it takes is for someone to be labelled "a bad actor" is a mere allegation...And without yet even having made a statement in their defense...
As a former professional political operative, particularly as one who worked on the #DavidSoknacki campaign, the ability for progressives to eat their own and spit them out: the purity tests, the litmus tests, and the outright hostility if anyone should fail them, and the speed and intensity withwhich that hostility is applied...
People are messy!
Life is messy!
Ideally we'd make every decision through consensus but sometimes compromise is needed!
Perfection is the enemy of the good enough!
-
I hate to be "That Guy" but I would remind everyone that these are allegations in the form of a statement of claim, not a finding of fact in a court of law.
As far as I'm aware we do have a presumption of innocence in Canada.
Obviously the allegation is disturbing, but I will withhold my condemnation and won't be moving instances until such time as a finding of fact is made (or at least until we see some evidence to back up the claims).
As for "he's hosting it at home" as some kind of evidence of malice, there was a deliberate and public effort to get mstdn.ca off of "the cloud" and onto Canadian sovereign servers, so I feel like this is slandering someone with their good intentions.
I note, this is not a defence of his alleged actions, merely a reminder of our professed values.
@evdelen @mayintoronto That presumption of innocence is a habit of *the courts* *in the courtroom* - not of the general public (who are allowed to use other heuristics) in public.
Were this not so, jurors would never be challenged or questioned. Hell, prosecutors wouldn't be allowed to bring cases.
