Comment on Censorship Tracker Banned Me for Tracking Its Censorship by dickie

Parent Post: Censorship Tracker Banned Me for Tracking Its Censorship

dickie · 7/25/2026, 6:01:52 AM (edited) · permalink

**TL;DR:** Neo accused me of posting “A.I. slop,” mocked formatting that looks normal from my end, demanded sources, and did all of this while having me blocked so I cannot see or answer his posts when logged in.  
  
The sources exist. Censorship Tracker’s Maine page appears to confuse two imported OpenStreetMap records with an actual statewide count, omits several local data-center moratoriums, and contains a stale description of the Jay project.  
  
So the irony is simple: Neo demanded proof while blocking the response, soj.ooo appears to render posts inconsistently, and Censorship Tracker is the actual polished slop: confident presentation covering incomplete data, undefined methodology, stale information, and missing context.
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1784959311908-85b49db31bd8cb5c.jpg)
@neo commented on my post twice, accused me of using an “A.I. slop generator,” mocked the formatting, as he has me blocked so I can't see the posts while logged in.  
  
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1784959387392-5c6665720f2d40d0.jpg)
  
  
The spacing looks completely normal from my end.  
  
So whatever neo saw was not what I saw. That points to soj.ooo rendering pasted formatting inconsistently, not to some forensic breakthrough proving how the text was written.  
  
Nice try blaming the user for the website’s formatting problem.  
  
Then neo posted:

&gt;   
&gt; Sources: Trust me bro  
&gt;   
&gt;

He blocked me so I can't see his posts while logged in. But he still posts in my threads. Dick move.  
  
That is an efficient debate strategy:  
  
1\. Make an accusation.  
2\. Blame the website’s apparent formatting defect on the person posting.  
3\. Demand sources.  
4\. Block that person before they can answer.  
5\. Pretend the absence of an answer proves there were no sources.  
  
The original post questioned Censorship Tracker’s Maine data-center coverage.  
  
The tracker displays two Maine data-center records, but its cited IM3 dataset is derived from crowd-sourced OpenStreetMap data. The IM3 description says it contains locations of existing facilities and identifies OpenStreetMap as its source.  
  
Meanwhile, Data Center Map lists 11 Maine facilities across eight markets.  
  
Neither source is an official statewide inventory. That is precisely the point.  
  
The number shown by Censorship Tracker represents what its imported dataset contains. It does not prove that Maine has only two data centers.  
  
The tracker also highlights the veto of LD 307 as Maine’s example of pushback while giving little indication of the substantial municipal activity that followed. Sanford, Westbrook, Brunswick, Gorham and Scarborough all moved to pause data-center development while considering local regulation.  
  
The Jay description also became stale when Sentinel Data Centers withdrew from the proposed project and the development was placed on hold.  
  
Those were the claims.  
  
Here are the sources:  
  
\- [Censorship Tracker data-center map](https://censorshiptracker.com/datacenters.php)  
\- [IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas, U.S. Department of Energy record](https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2550666)  
\- [IM3 Data Center Atlas](https://im3.pnnl.gov/datacenter-atlas)  
\- [Data Center Map: 11 Maine facilities across eight markets](https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/maine/)  
\- [Gov. Janet Mills’ official LD 307 veto announcement](https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-decision-ld-307-2026-04-24)  
\- [Official LD 307 veto message explaining the 20-megawatt threshold](https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/official_documents/veto_messages/2026-04-ld-307-act-establish-maine-data-center-coordination)  
\- [City of Sanford: proposed emergency data-center moratorium](https://www.sanfordmaine.org/news_detail_T10_R211.php)  
\- [City of Westbrook: proposed 180-day data-center moratorium](https://www.westbrookmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05182026-1006)  
\- [Town of Brunswick: data-center moratorium materials](https://www.brunswickme.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3965?fileID=35643)  
\- [Town of Gorham: June 2 council minutes](https://www.gorhammaine.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif4456/f/minutes/06-02-2026_regular_town_council_meeting_minutes.pdf)  
\- [Scarborough’s 180-day data-center moratorium](https://wgme.com/news/local/scarborough-town-council-to-vote-on-proposed-data-center-moratorium)  
\- [Maine Public: Jay project placed on hold after the developer withdrew](https://www.mainepublic.org/climate/2026-06-12/developer-halts-plans-for-data-center-at-former-jay-paper-mill)  
  
So yes, there were sources.  
  
Neo just made sure not to be present when they arrived.  
  
That is not serious discussion.  
  
That is ringing someone’s doorbell, shouting “prove it” through the mail slot, and sprinting away before the door opens.  
  
The spacing looks fine from my end.  
  
The sources exist.  
  
Censorship Tracker is the actual A.I. slop: a polished layout, an authoritative tone, dramatic slogans, undefined categories, incomplete imported data, stale entries and missing local context.  
  
It is a polished turd.  
  
The polish is doing all the work.  
  
Soj.ooo is the other kind of A.I. slop: buggy formatting, inconsistent presentation, and people blaming users for defects in the platform before blocking the reply.  
  
Censorship Tracker is what the slop generator produces after someone adds a logo.  
  
Soj.ooo is where the polished turd gets posted, rendered incorrectly, and blamed on the person who noticed the smell.

4 bumps

sacredcow · 7/25/2026, 12:33:57 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature