A Social Media Influencer Will Serve 14 Years in Prison After His Plot To Take Over a Website at Gunpoint Backfired (cnn.com) 70
A social media influencer was sentenced to 14 years in prison for plotting to hijack a website at gunpoint during a home invasion. From a report: Rossi Lorathio Adams II, 27, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, received the sentence Monday after he was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by force, threats and violence, according to a statement from the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa. Adams, also known as "Polo," founded a social media company called "State Snaps" in 2015 while he was enrolled as a student at Iowa State University. His social media accounts on platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter had over a million followers at one point, the statement said. The site's content included video and photos of "young adults engaged in crude behavior, drunkenness, and nudity," according to the statement. Followers of State Snaps used the slogan "Do It For State," and Adams wanted to purchase the internet domain doitforstate.com to expand his company, the statement said.
Source? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
wait, whoops! (Score:2)
Look at me.
I'm the administrator now!
Worked out a little better (less worse?) than trying it with a oil tanker.
PR stunt (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: PR stunt (Score:2)
Shame that he didnâ(TM)t manage a Darwin Award.
It's not over yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Total PR stunt, why for only 15 years in prison he got featured on Slashdot! Imagine the growth.
Yeah, I can't get to any of his sites. Musta been slashdotted.
City of Five ... (Score:1)
Big shout out to my friends still living in the City of Five Smells!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my hommies! Born and raised there.
(Got out as soon as I could!)
Simpsons did it (Score:2)
Adams, also known as "Polo," founded a social media company called "State Snaps" in 2015 while he was enrolled as a student at Iowa State University. His social media accounts on platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter had over a million followers at one point, the statement said. The site's content included video and photos of "young adults engaged in crude behavior, drunkenness, and nudity,
So it was basically a knockoff old school CollegeHumor website?
Re: (Score:3)
Every generation we have some young adults who are going to shake up the norm, with Shock Media.
"You can't say or do that in public!, Well I will! Take that Society!"
Sometimes when a Shock Media group does it at the right level. Then they can cause some change in society (Simpsons did it) But there are a much more media outlets, that just went too far, and after a brief tout of popularity, they get boring and fizzle out. Until the next generation wants to rebel.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between being a rebel and being an asshole. So I'm curious, what do you think "the hivemind" ostracizes people for?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm asking WHAT "echo chamber views" are people talking about. Because, you know, some VERY commonly held views are actually good. Like "don't murder." Huge fucking echo chamber around "don't murder." You'll be completely ostracized if you don't echo that view, let me tell you! In fact, people who do murder are usually thought of as "assholes" by all "right thinking" people. The nerve!
So, AGAIN I ASK, what views are you fucking talking about? The fact that you won't even mention them leads me to believe, ma
Re: Echo chambers (Score:2)
Re: Echo chambers (Score:2)
Probably all those -1, Troll modded views where the actual intent was -1, Disagree.
People can be petty over the small stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Modding is an example of free speech, as is any sort of criticism of someone else's speech. When I tell an advertiser I won't buy their products if they advertise with X, I am not censoring anyone, I am engaging in free speech. It's only censorship if force is involved. Nobody owes anyone a free platform from which to shout their views. In this country, your ability to get your message out to others is limited only by the tools you own, and you are free to buy whatever tools you like.
Don't like it? Well, I
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe you're satirizing to reinforce AC's original point. I'm just not sure anymore, so I'll play the dupe.
Here's one example.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
I don't know much about Alex Jones or his views, maybe he's a loon, maybe not. I don't care. The point is that he has been declared to be guilty of wrongthink, and therefore must be censored. Freedom of speech does not apply because reasons.
Now it's your turn to explain why it's OK because his views are OMG so dangerous! How this is truly
Re:Echo chambers (Score:4, Informative)
Let me give you an example. Firefly was a popular television show. Despite this, it was cancelled. No one, even the most rabid fans, claimed that it was being censored. Everyone understood that the network owned their own broadcast equipment, and thanks to our being a free market with private ownership, non-owners had no say over what the owners put on the air. This, in spite of the fact that there were very few alternative ways to get a show seen at the time.
Alex Jones has not been found guilty of "wrongthink." Nope, he was found guilty of being something much, much worse. He was found guilty of being bad for sales.
The thing everyone seems to forget is that free speech works both ways. Folks who own broadcast or multicast media have the same free speech rights as everyone else, plus they have ownership rights. Telling someone they MUST say something is as much a violation of their free speech as saying they CAN'T say something. So forcing a private owner to publish things they don't agree with violates not only their property rights, but also THEIR free speech rights.
This is not about Jones' views, they are irrelevant. This is about private property rights and the free speech rights of the people who own the equipment Jones uses to get his message out. Jones is still free to stand on any street corner in the country and preach. He is free to buy a press and use it. He is free to buy a television studio and use it.He and his fans have no right to demand the use of others' property.
Jones is selling a product. People don't want to buy it. That is the free market in action. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
Now, let me head off one other ill informed argument I can guess you will try to make: the people who are complaining about Alex are the ones who are censoring him, in a moral if not a legal sense. Execept they are not using force. What are they using, exactly?
I want you to say it. Say what those people are using to get Alex kicked off a network he doesn't own. That's right bub! It's free speech they are using. By claiming Alex has a right to his speech, but his critics should be prohibited from using theirs, you are now just as guilty of free speech violations as they are. In my opinion, that means neither of you are guilty, because neither used force. If your opinion is consistent, you have to pick one stance and apply it to both groups.
In short, nobody is censoring Alex Jones. I also, for the record, do not believe that you "don't know much about Alex Jones." You know exactly what he is and what is going on, and you are feigning ignorance for rhetorical effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, I heartily agree.
As for Alex, I really don't. To hell with him for all I care. I just picked the first link in the related links section at the bottom of the page. I merely wanted to point out that for whatever reason, it is happening.
Alex Jones was singled out because he's bad for the bottom line. I get that, and I don't doubt it for a second. Probably bad for sales because the people with the money don't want to fund his vehicle for spreading whatever his message is.
Whatever the reason, it
Re: (Score:2)
The only unfairness I see is that online media are treated differently than offline media. For most media, if you curate (i.e.pick and choose) content, you are liable for your choices. If the New York Times chooses to publish a slanderous letter to the editor, they could (in theory) be sued. If ABC put on a show produced by someone else, they could not avoid liability just by claiming they didn't make the show.
Online, thanks to the Communications Decency Act, that's not how things work. Companies can pick a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. The thing about mandating free speech on a private platform is that you are automatically, by definition, infringing on free speech. It's like saying "Hey, twocows, if you don't lend me your bullhorn and let me use your porch as a platform, you are infringing on my speech. Also, when I say "Twocows is a stupid idiot" you have to repeat what I say, or you are infringing on my speech."
People forget Facebook is owned by actual people, who have free speech rights themselves. Telling them they must broadca
Re: (Score:2)
The challenge is per societal norms it is difficult to differentiate between assholes and rebels till after the fact. Rebels are basically whose weird behavior gets accepted and becomes the new norm. Assholes are those whose weird behaviour does not become the norm
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so some views SHOULD be anathema. People who think murder is good should be ostracized by those who don't like murder. If you want to tell everyone how you love sexing up dead bodies, you'll be ostracized and I won't defend you.
I'll be frank, people who whine about being ostracized for their views, but refuse to elaborate what those views are, make me very suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not buying it. "Heterodox thought" is a cop out. Be specific. What is being ostracized? Your attempt to deflect the discussion onto a "theory" (more of a loosey goosey guess) of why people get outraged and how bad outrage is, is patently obvious as a distraction.
The reason it is a distraction is that all we are talking about here is free speech, and property rights. By demanding that others use their property to broadcast speech they disagree with, you would be the one interfering with both free speech
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you admit that no one is engaging in violence, and responding to free speech with more free speech is acceptable, we don't really have an argument. Even if I say "Don't do business with that guy over there if you want my business" that is simply free speech on my part, and free association. That kind of speech should always be protected, yes?
You are correct that I don't really hold libertarian beliefs. I'd like to see the government regulating a lot more things than just the "free speech" of corp
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. I was a long term fan. I had been there since season 1 and planned to stick it out to the end, but completely gave up on them when they jumped on the through-MJ-under-the-bus bandwagon. Funny how they never had a problem with MJ (or making money from his work) during the accusations, trials, out-of-court settlements, etc in the 1990s and early 2000s, but as soon as one of their fellow hollywood elites, 10 years after MJ's death, released the MJ Bad Man "documentary" they decided to do a 180. It was
Re: (Score:2)
It's apparently called "influencer" now and you can major in it at most colleges. It sounds better than "douchebag" too.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Nat Lamp do this in the 70's?
Sure but... (Score:2)
...think of all the followers he got!
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the advertisers who pay people they call "influencers" big bucks to promote their products. You might even say they pay them to influence people.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a several-million-a-year industry, I'd say its a thing.
No, it is completely made up crap. (Score:2)
It is exactly like those people who are famous for being famous, and for no other reason. E.g. the Kardashians.
Even worse than Flappy Bird. Which was popular for being popular, and for no other reason.
It is the circular reasoning version of hype. Not an argument.
It stands on nothing but its own hands. Not a thing.
Loool, riiiight. $15B. ... my ass. (Score:2)
You mean the advertising industry?
Yes, that exists.
Something being a thing is not defined as how much an industry allots to hallucinating it.
It must actually be a thing. By itself. In reality.
As I said above: It is the circular reasoning version of hype. It holds its feet in its ow hands; no ground below. It is not a thing.
Also, funny how those Eternal Septemberers who iPad the Internet believe their insane perversions of the Internet and computers are progress and the superior way. Textbook Dunning-Kruger
home invasion with an GUN Chould of been shot doi (Score:3)
home invasion with an GUN Chould of been shot doing that.
Re:14 years? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it had more to do with holding someone hostage, pistol-whipping and putting a bullet into their body.
That shit adds up quickly, ya know...
And yes, he didn't do it himself but had his cousin do it. And I'm not too firm with the laws of your country, but in mine, if you have someone do your dirty work, you hang for just as much as he does, so considering that the actual perp he hired got 20 years, he's got off really easy with 14.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in (at least most of) the States, that would qualify as Conspiracy to commit a felony, and get you nailed to a tree....
I'm assuming our mastermind had a good lawyer, who managed to convince the Judge that our mastermind didn't really order his flunky to shoot anyone....
Re: (Score:2)
How did the guy survive THAT?!?!!
If I get off multiple rounds (likely at close range) into someone's chest, they are definitely going to be taking the "room temperature test".
The assailant got very lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he will eventually. Because I am sure in my shock I'll have a hard time finding my phone quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
Under US law, if you knowingly assist in the committing of a crime, you can (and probably will) be sentenced along with him. He is a thug, a criminal, and a piece of shit.
Re:14 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is your premise, you jackass? That he had to do it, because white supremacy? Or that is he is helpless against his impulses? Or what, exactly?
No matter how you cut it, if you think a person's race matters in a case like this, you are the worst kind of racist scum.
Re: (Score:1)
Plus...or minus? (Score:3)
I was going to say "give him an extra year for astonishingly stupid crime" but then thought...do we really want to DISCOURAGE stupid crimes?
What if, based on the idiocy of his plan from the start, we DISCOUNTED him a year off his sentence?* I mean, if we encourage people of a criminal mindset "hey, the dumber your plan, you might get some time off" - it might convince them that they don't need to be so careful, which would benefit everyone from the cops to the victims.
*in fact, we simply add another 2-3 years on at the end. He's so stupid, I doubt he'd notice.
Re: Plus...or minus? (Score:3)
I though that the discounted sentence was already a pretty common tactic to push the suspects into admitting guilt. See Making a Murderer for an example with a low IQ kid.
How stupid can you get? (Score:3)
If I enter your house with a gun to force you to transfer your domain to my cousin, what are the chances that you are NOT getting caught? It is inevitable unless you kill the man, and then it is first degree murder (murder to cover up another crime is first degree), it's slightly harder for the police to find out, but for a murder they look hard. Very little chance you get away with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this was actually clever. He was probably counting on the police thinking that his plot was too stupid to be real.
FTFY (Score:2)
"Criminal will serve 14 years in prison after home invasion using gun"
Social media influencer? (Score:1)