Daniel Brandt and Censorship

Hello, I have written this article explaining the “big picture” I put together in regards of Daniel Brandt and his online censorship. I choose to write about Daniel Brandt because as a person who stands up for freedom in the internet I feel that it is my duty to expose him and allow people to comprehend what he really does on the internet. Moreover, I am going to discuss about which tactics he uses to gain censorship and state his delusions and hypocrisy.

There are controversies surrounding Brandt with his online activism. It is well known that he is a critic towards Google, Yahoo and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a subject related to censorship. Brandt’s Wikipedia article has been deleted several times; reason being for privacy issues. Even having his name mentioned in an article makes him feel uncomfortable. Brandt’s problem is that he has an inane sense of entitlement. However, this is not to be interpreted as “hey credit me for doing this” but rather he holds the belief that he is a private personality and is simply above being documented, criticized or mocked. In other words, Brandt is under the illusion in which anything violating his so-called “privacy” is a form of internet crime. This idea is a mere product of his 24/7 tinfoil hat binge which, itself, contains a deeper truth. As a result of this entitlement Brandt makes sure that no one sees the “big picture”.

Imagine this. The “big picture” is a completed puzzle that portrays his activism and the puzzle pieces are his drama, forums posts, websites and other misdeeds. Brandt’s goal is to destroy any attempts at putting together the puzzle for if his audience were to see the big picture they wouldn’t see him in a very positive light. Brandt already found an audience of sheep who won’t even bother putting together the puzzle and would rather interpret his rants as fact. And who can blame him? The big picture does nothing more than reveal how delusional Brandt is and how callous he truly acts. Why would you trust a man who sold a woman’s address and phone info online? Why would he sell this information to a man who used it to stalk her in real life? In all, why did he obtain her information simply because she is an administrator on Wikipedia? This attempt at sustaining his reputation is not completely exclusive to his audience but, to a degree, also applies to the government.

That’s right; Brandt has an unhealthy relationship with the law with his activism and accusations against the government. He believes that if the government were to find out about his actions on the internet then he would suffer consequences. This is where we reach the point of utter bullshit. If Brandt believes that articles documenting his nefarious internet activities would get him in trouble with the law then why does he continue to do these actions? This means that Brandt holds the philosophy of “it’s not bad if you don’t get caught” which explains his constant protest against any documentations of his actions; he believes that destroying the big picture forming will allow him to continue his internet stalking safely. What Brandt fails to acknowledge is that this will contribute to Streisand Effect; his actions will simply add more puzzle pieces that will change the big picture to reveal more ugly information. Brandt, unbeknownst to the ripple effect of his doings, continues this cycle which will inevitably collapse on him as he simply contributes to his own problem.

No matter how much Brandt and his Wikipedia Review followers twist the truth Brandt’s removal of information is a form of censorship. Brandt is simply not bright enough to realize that he wouldn’t be at such risk if he didn’t continue to do what he knew would get him in trouble. You can cheat on a test without getting in trouble; you know that doing this can get you in trouble unless you are caught. In that case, you prevent other people from ratting you out so you can continue cheating on more tests thus putting yourself at risk of getting a more severe punishment. So Brandt continues putting himself at risk instead of merely stopping at what he suspects would get him in legal trouble.

Needless to say, this is blatant hypocrisy. Over the years, Brandt has kept a wall of Wikipedia admins on his website Wikipedia-Watch. One would ask “why keep a wall of info?” After all they’re only there because they’re administrators on Wikipedia, are they criminals? Is there something wrong with being an administrator on an online encyclopedia? Perhaps this is a way to make Brandt feel as if he’s in control; a way to make him feel like the smarter and clever person. Of course, as mentioned before, one of the administrators ended up being stalked in real life because he obtained her information.

Brandt claims that he gathered this info legally as he found it using a nonprofit called “Public Research Information”. This is actually true; there are a number of websites that document basic information which includes addresses and phone numbers. Brandt is no exception to this. His info was found on public websites such as vLex which documented one of Brandt’s court cases, thus his ideas of being a “private” personality is just him saying “please don’t dox me or the big guys will find out”.

I do not wish to sound like the typical anonymous member pointing fingers at corporations and saying “YOU’RE DAMAGING MY FREEDOM” but I refuse to stand by and let a single man and a group of his cronies to successfully censor information online using blackmail on a completely personal level. This is why I embrace this blog’s ideal, just reading posts on Wikipedia Review and how they worship Brandt absolutely sickens me. This blog will indeed grow with more stories about this man from different victims.