I didn’t find anything. But I also work 40 plus hours a week, so that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s not something out there. But it’s more likely the case that this might not be true, from what I know.

I stand corrected then. You can ignore all my bloviating.

Instagram and TikTok are already big social media giants in their own right.

If TikTok gets gobbled up, it’ll be because of the legal proceedings going on in which lawmakers are trying to force TikTok to allow itself to be bought up by some US company. Which is another issue altogether, cause if I start a business, the legality of the US government forcing me to sell my business to someone else, or even to be forced to sell my business to a foreign government or company and not be allowed to possess it, is a whole can of worms.

But outside of WhatsApp being shut down due to security reasons, the majority of those wouldn’t qualify as social media sites that would be gobbled up by some other social media giant.

So far, all I’ve found is a 2018 publication by the Police Executive Research Forum, entitled “The Changing Nature of Crime And Criminal Investigations”. It’s a 67 page document, and I’m curious to see if it discusses how their investigation tactics may have changed, and if so, whether the aforementioned tactic is mentioned as being included.

Another comment way down claims it’s standard operating procedure for social media sites to disable/hide and account of a highly publicized murderer, particularly during investigations. However, the provided no examples nor sources or technical documents that detail this as something that is genuinely done as a standard procedure.

I’m kinda gonna do my own research on that, but I feel the validity of Stack’s actions would to some degree depend on the results of researching that claim, and whether or not that is true.

It’s kinda difficult to research something like that though when most highly publicized murders predated social media in its current form, so it would be hard to have a lot of examples despite there being a decent number of people who fit the bill, ironically.

I’m starring this cause I want to look into this myself, and if I find any technical sources that address this claim and actually detail this as a SOP, I’ll reply with that source later, or otherwise reply with “I didn’t find anything.”

Actually, they got them to shoot gun-wielding home invaders who threaten (if not attempt to murder) their family members.

This is the equivalent of a bank robber standing in a vault, filling his bag full of jewels. One of the hostages yelling “You can’t do this, it’s illegal.” Some other guy yells “…and yet…” minutes before police sirens can be heard outside.

I look forward to Mangiine catching wind of this, which is basically theft, and adding it to the laundry list of things to be tried in court.

Righteous censorship is only “righteous” because everyone else is prevented from saying otherwise.

The presumption or admission of guilt does not and should not justify violating the Creative Commons License, nor perpetrating any illegal behavior agains any individual(s).

If JK Rowling went out and robbed a bank, or murdered an ex-Husband, in no world or timeline would that give a member of her publishing company the right to scratch out her name from any of her books and replace it with their own or someone else’s.