Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 3 Out of 200: A More In-Depth Breakdown
In Part 1 we gave some information about this series and in Part 2 a very detailed chronology (chronicled point by point). Call them parts or "sections", they represent a portion of a huge, long series. It is factual and pays respect to an Order with injunction.
This section is an extension of the above-mentioned timeline, but it presents the narrative in a less chronological and more logically coherent fashion. (Free-text form, expressive)
Over a decade ago a consortium of companies came up with a plan to standardise computing around the dubious but self-serving idea (or topology) wherein, in practice, Microsoft would control which operating systems are permitted to boot on standard, off-the-shelf computer hardware. This would imperil users wishing to install an operating system of their choice on hardware purchased to be owned and for users to exercise full control over their digital lives. The underlying concepts are often referred to, collectively, as software freedom (a concept dating back to 1983) or contrariwise restricted computing, treacherous computing, or locked-down computing wherein the user possesses a mere appliance, often remotely controlled by another party, either locally or remotely. While in practice the latter is rather common, e.g. in set-top boxes (STBs) in people’s homes or families home routers, that presents many moral issues and introduces great risk to national security. There are both practical and ethical reasons to stubbornly oppose control by large companies – often foreign and potentially hostile too – controlling people’s devices remotely. As many appliances are made in China, for instance, even if at the behest of American brands, in practice it is difficult to ascertain they would function as was originally intended. As recently as July 2024 there were press reported about serious defects in implementations of the above-mentioned schemes, asserting that several hundreds of devices (mostly laptops) from 5 large brands (OEMs) used improper keys and were not suitable for purpose.
The Web site Techrights wrote a great deal about this topic. It also named some of the companies responsible for what would become not just anti-competitive but also user-hostile. At one point Matt came to the Techrights blog and started defending the work he had done for Red Hat, now part of IBM. He already got in trouble for his controversial contribution and received plenty of criticism for it, and he had habitually defamed people who got in his way. The defamation was mostly coming from (or through) Twitter, but occasionally from his blog too (he barely blogs nowadays, it's seldom that he writes in long form anywhere at all). From what can be gathered, based on antics spamming about 2 decades, Matt likes to attack people who do not agree with technical work that he does instead of properly and politely arguing based on the facts, perhaps exposing the fact that he lacks professional background and thus looks to compensate with style rather than substance. In some cases the personal attacks may seem innocuous, but in some incredulous instances they would reach as far as serious accusations of a criminal nature and then snitching to employers, in effect seeking revenge by defaming the critics. One must never lose sight of the fact that abundant hypocrisy is introduced into the claims, namely by accusing the victim of what the perpetrator himself habitually does to others.
Focusing again on the response to the technical dispute, Matt turned the discussion of the above technical and commercial issue into a personal quarrel. In years that passed, from 2012-2024, Techrights would regularly show evidence that it was correct all along on what would happen over time, e.g. new PCs that aren't permitted to boot anything but Windows (artificial barriers and obstructions). Instead of dealing with or accepting that he had done considerable harm to all computer users everywhere in the world, in defiance of people who kept warning about it, Matt would make the matter personal and seek to discredit the critics - to the point of unhealthy if not borderline obsessive-compulsive stalking of critics (spying on them 24/7 for years is not normal behaviour), trying to challenge them on issues not even remotely related to technology and sometimes provoking them by bringing up sex. Matt was throwing stones in a glasshouse because of his problematic history, on which he commented in public. Matt is relatively irresponsible in disclosing intimate details about himself, e.g. being a former Domestic Violent survivor, uttering intolerant things about vulnerable groups, treating women like they’re sex objects etc. His background, and perhaps even personal perils, aren’t made excusable by painful past experiences and offloading personal pain and angst onto others is not permissible either by law or by implicit social norms. For instance, if a friend of his was injured in Ireland in a bombing, that does not entitle him to censor people on political topics in forums that he neither runs nor controls. If he suffered personal pains him past relationships, treating women like dirt isn’t a case of collective revenge, for most of the world’s people are female and they did not personally pain him.
In 2021, facing growing backlash for his campaigns of hate (inciting or rallying people against old people, even a person approaching in 70s and who now has cancer), and only months after Roy accused Matt of repeatedly defaming him, Matt sought to reverse the narrative and cherry-picked some old "tweet", sending Roy a baffling pre-action letter of dubious veracity. Roy never ever responded to that. In fact, months later Roy did a 2-hour video explaining why the letter was (2021-12-25), in his opinion, legally invalid and nothing short of SLAPP. Immoral SLAPP that would result in a couple, instead of donating to blind people's and animal charities as usual would instead pay legal professionals, just to bring satisfaction to a ruthless bully who strives to drag them down.
In years that followed Matt's efforts to discredit Roy would only intensify further, possibly culminating in attempts to get Roy and his wife fired from their jobs. While some parts of this are hard to prove (the employer did not name who contacted and whether it was anonymous), there is ample circumstantial evidence and Rianne wrote about the abuse. She meticulously documented what had happened, whereupon Matt started sending her E-mails, as did Matt’s online associates. They would later persist to abusive communications, to which she never responded. Rianne’s account of her experiences with Matt, which boil down to almost nothing (except this lawsuit), will be dealt with separately in the next sub-section and Part 4.
In late 2023, around October to be more precise, Matt's desperate efforts to censor what was said about him ended up with a lousy public call for inexpensive lawyers, seeking what he said would be "funny" (probably another round of SLAPP, years after the empty threats sent in the form of pre-action letters, preliminarily sent only to Roy). This is well documented and was in fact responded to (publicly in Roy’s site) at the time, clarifying that SLAPP by an American citizen (and Irishman) though the British legal system against British system would be worse than tasteless and would likely lead Matt to further dispute without prospects of reprieve. It should be noted that Roy had already written a great deal about SLAPP (in the context of several countries) for nearly 2 decades, so he knew what would be involved and why it would be an own goal. Roy was always happy to correct an allegedly inaccurate statement in his articles, but Matt sought bulk-deletion rather than correction – a step that would assimilate his mindset to something Soviet rather than Western in nature. Roy repeatedly highlighted Matt’s long history of embarrassing statements against the concept of Free Speech and thus, by extension, the First Amendment in the US. Some commentator said that it made his vow (or ‘pledge of allegiance’ equivalent) when seeking to be naturalised as American someone half-hearted. Freedom of the press does not mean the freedom to lie, but freedom of information and press freedom cannot endure in countries where each time someone feels unease a “cheap” lawsuit gets filed with tactical purposes, e.g. removing an article critical of corrupt oligarchs, government officials, in turn setting a bad precedented and intimidating example that yields a “Chilling Effect”. Society that revels in free press protects the rights of writers with mediation through correction, amendment, etc. Litigation must be the last course of action and reserved to some of the most obscene cases, not some pro bono writers who write about abuse they received.
Months later Matt would send another pair of pre-action letters, one to Roy and one to his wife Rianne. It look him a long time to actually file a lawsuit (nearly 3 months), using extraordinary and sometimes distorted claims. Months have passed since the lawsuit and not even once did Matt comment on it in public (anywhere) and now he seems to be trying to get out of the case he started, seeing he cannot afford the battle short of financial assistance from some entity willing to invest in his lousy campaign to censor a fairly modest couple living in Manchester, who never got sued before for anything.
Former targets of Matt's hateful campaigns and violent rhetoric (threats of punching, stabbing, "axe-murdering") have since come forth, offering to testify against him shall the matter enter a court and involve hearings. Matt probably recognises by now that his past behaviour is a liability that comes back to haunt him. He wants out, but the damage done by his Particulars of Claim may remain not only costly but also a source of nuisance.
It should be noted that Matt and/or his friends attack again, resulting in Roy and Rianne making a complaint to the police and opening a fourth case (with many items in each). The exchange with the police is a matter of official record and can be queried upon demand. It does help brief local cops to lessen danger, albeit harms caused by existing cybercrimes result in considerable toil and are likely intended to facilitate further abuse while slowing down defence efforts.
Tor exit nodes do not keep logs, so subpoenas would be a pointless waste of time and money. In a sense, use of Tor by the Claimant (Matt) makes proving his innocence harder, as he shares a pool of IP addresses with many other abusers.
He has long parked in the IRC network or still parks in the IRC network, so in other words he persists in the aggravation and extended the abuse not only to spouses but also sibling and patents, even elderly people with cancer. █
Image source: Roy and Rianne Schestowitz