Well, I was trying to figure out which category he fit into: sealioning, trolling, intensionally obtuse, emotionless pedant, naive internet sleuth, lazy internet sleuth, and even "completely serious fact-finder with no agenda". I think your "comedy" falls under "trolling" but I'd also be prepared for him being a completely serious fact-finder who truly believes that people are just lying. I've kind of lost interest because he's not contributing anything to the discussion.

I’ve never heard the term sealioning, that’s super useful! Yeah I would file this bit under that umbrella, as serious fact-finders would (in this case) do a 10 second search themselves, whereas “prove libsoftiktok is malignant here on this page, the comments section of a hacker news post” isn’t a hallmark of good faith engagement.

> For example, I actually answered Rich’s last question but didn’t get a reply because it didn’t fit into the bit.

You didn't get a reply because I haven't been on the site.

You also didn't answer my question. You posted a blog post alleging that specific claims had been made. I acknowledged that the allegations seemed serious and asked if the video in question was available to be viewed, to which you simply responded "no."

Saying "you can easily find examples" is disingenuous when many of the examples are making or repeating claims that are either unsourced or with dubious evidence. For example, the linked article seems to omit context that took me "10 seconds" to find.

I love this bit. Have you posted a write up of what you’ve found that indicates that the complaints about libsoftiktok are made up? I’m guessing you have even more links to post in the two days between your posting this on this site:

>I have, and what I've found does not support the claims that people are making.

and your reply to me!