Examples of Fark.com Deceit: Shadowbans,
Shadowfilters, Profile Shadowing, Profile
Filtering and More




Bullshit about Fark Being Sold Off:

Looks like the whole thing was bullshit. Sorry, folks.

Bannination thread about this: http://www.bannination.com/comments/5006036

The source was someone who calls himself "Cuddles_in_KY".

Fark Profile: http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/users.pl?login=cuddles_in_ky

banniNation Profile: http://www.bannination.com/users/cuddles

You could also find some other info if you look up his domain, flowerseatshit.com...

All of this, of course, is a matter of public record and anyone could find this info.





Other factors:

* Cuddles would not provide a cell phone camera shot, or a digital camera shot of the
article when pressed. Judging from his blog, he does have access to a digital camera of some
sort. According to the header information of the pictures he has on his blog, the Camera
he has is a New_MSM Omnivision 9655 1.3 MP. More than enough to take a high quality,
readable picture of the alleged newspaper article.

* Endless excuses and a lot of claims that really didn't add up. Papers don't pull and
bury an article that has been printed, they print corrections and retractions. His
explanations were reasonable at first, then started sound more like rambling excuses as
he tried to stall for more time.

* He's known for being a total bullshitter. Theories have been made about the motive,
some are pretty icky. I'm not going to bother with speculation anymore.


His "scan", for those who want it. Do whatever you want with this to check it out, and
let me know if you find any additional things about the image that confirm the above.


CaponeX has provided me with a further in-depth analysis of the scan and the flaws that
he found with what was provided.






Paper Press Update:

July 13th, 2007: You decide how this smells.

* The Business Notes section DOES exist: http://www.kentucky.com/101/story/117652.html

* Like the example below, Business Notes tend to be brief, one or two paragraphs and
  not go into much detail.

* Able to find a link for the Business Notes section the site for the paper dated
  07/07/07, but not 07/08/07.

* Called the paper myself, unable to get a transcript. "Last article about Fark was back
  in May." Verified with two departments... however...

* Source said he got a message from the paper's copy department stating: "We won't be
  charging your card. The article you requested has been pulled for validation and fact
  checking due to a complaint."

* Was article pulled from circulation? Or made up?

* Source claims the actual clipping will be available by Monday as he has to get it from
  family member.

* Another user on Bannination is also in Kentucky and still has a copy of the Sunday paper.
  I have requested a message to be passed on to this user and a photograph or scan of the
  page to be made. A third user has attempted to get a transcript or e-edition of the
  issue. No updates from either people, yet.

* Source told me to "release him to the dogs" if article is not provided by end of Sunday.
  Tempting, but I will not breach promises of privacy unless I have no other choice but to
  do so.

* No, I have not heard from Drew directly regarding this site.

* I have a lawyer friend trying to track down any legal dockets regarding any lawsuits filed
  against Drew Curtis, Fark.Com or associated parties. This may take a while to turn up
  information, if any is to be found.

* As I've said before, yes, I still have to give the source the benefit of a doubt until
  I feel that I can no longer do so, although I will admit my paitence is wearing thin.

* If the information turns out to be false, whether or not it was published in the first
  place, then I have no problem admitting I made a mistake. I WILL publically state such
  and not attempt to hide what has been said so far that was incorrect. There is no agenda
  here beyond trying to document and prove Fark tries to censor from their own site and
  wherever their reach extends. However... if it's true...


Whatever happens, we'll know by Monday (the 16th) morning.





July 12th, 2007: I have spoken with the source who initially provided me with the info stating
that this article appeared in the Lex Herald. There has been some controversy regarding the
legitimacy of the claim... since this article has not appeared on the wires and was only
apparently published in a local section of a newspaper.

My source has contacted friends and family to find someone who still had the Sunday issue
and provided me with a transcript as read over the phone from a friend. The source has also
ordered a transcript from the Herald-Leader's copy service and the copy should arrive in
the mail within a day or two. The transcript AND clipped copy of the article from friends
with both be scanned and put online as soon as they are obtained.

Until we can get proof of the article via scan or digital camera copy, this is all that is
available:



Transcript hopefully will arrive tomorrow and a proper scan will be posted if everything
checks out. The article comes from the paper's "Weekend Business RoundUp", which is a
section with short blurbs about businesses in Lexington.

The source also had this to add, after consulting with a lawyer regarding the article in
question: Technically, Fark is a "media service" so Drew could sell it and his name would
still be listed as owner/operator for up to a year before the new owners would have to
change the names on file.

As I said before, I am inclined to give my source the benefit of a doubt as the source
has been VERY forthcoming with information ... as opposed to dropping hints and giving
the run-around.

The interesting thing to note is that the email from Drew does not -deny- that such an
article appeared in the papers.

Additional information to be posted here as soon as it's available.





Earlier Today:

July 12th, 2007: An email from Drew denies the claims and thinks the report is a prank.
Still waiting on scan of article.

If my source regarding the existence of this article lied to me or behaves suspiciously
regarding coughing up actual proof of the article, I WILL out them.

So far, however, the source has been very forthcoming and seems to have made more than
just a minor attempt to get through and keep me updated.





July 11th, 2007:

In the Sunday paper there was a short article about Fark.Com and banned people suing Drew
Curtis because of refunds that were not issued. Waiting on a scan of the article but these
are the details as we know it so far:

* Drew admits he no longer owns the site, Fark.com.
* Total Fark subscribers who have been banned have sued Drew to recover subscription fees.
* The statement seems to imply (second hand word of mouth here) that, through his Lawyer,
"Banned Total Farkers are not getting refunds because Drew no longer owns the site."

This article was said to be printed in the Lexington Herald-Leader in its Sunday Edition
on July 8th. Said to be a short article, about 2 inches long.

Update: Someone has contacted me to let me know that this article is indeed real (and not
just some internet rumour) and that they will make a scan for me to post on this site.





http://valleywag.com/tech/fark/drew-curtis-tempts-libel-plaintiffs-258724.php

The founder of Fark, one of the web's most popular and most puerile humor sites, says the
property actually lost money in 2006. One of the reasons: Drew Curtis says he spends $150,000
a year on lawyers, and has built up a war chest of $140,000 in case of a serious lawsuit. "There
is more money in the bank, but I'm just waiting to get sued. It's just a matter of time before
somebody comes after us, and I don't want to be sitting there at zero." Mistake! A libel fund,
advertised to potential plaintiffs, is like a tempting morsel dropped into a pool of rapacious
piranhas.

3:11 PM ON TUE MAY 8 2007
BY NICK DENTON

This NPR article seems to be the source for the above...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10009173





Notes About the Above:

Is the Lawyer's statement that was printed in the Lexington Herald-Leader trying to say Drew
Curtis doesn't own the site an attempt to deflect those deciding not to sue Fark directly for
what essentially amounts to fraud? Hrmmm, the soup thickens...

Perhaps this can be explained by the Lexington article referring to people who have sued Drew
Curtis directly and not people suing Fark.Com LLC (Limited Liability Company) directly for these
issues... as Limited Liability Companies have protections in place to fend off issues like
lawsuits, protecting the individuals from the consequences of the acts of the LLC itself. This
would explain why these people decided to sue Drew directly. The real question would be, does
Drew own "shares" in Fark.Com LLC or is he just a paid spokesperson now?

Time will tell...

Update: http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/showentity.aspx?id=0526095&ct=06&cs=99999

Documentation on the company shows that Drew and Heather Curtis are the only owners of Fark.Com.
Hrmmm. Interesting.





This page has been linked to a discussion thread on Bannination.com, some interesting comments
and theories about what has been going on with Fark.Com in the past year. Some comments may be
tongue in cheek, but hey... I'd like to see what ends up being discovered as the result of
additional light being shed on this situation. If you have any updates, information or want to
let me know where this has been linked to in light of new developments, you can email me at
twelfth (the at sign) gmail.

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Lawsuit_over_Fark_com





More to come soon.

Back to Index





End of page.