Impossible Mad response. Not admitting without basis.
Of course it’s a Non-Human-Hate to me.
Cracking in 202202. The gist of the Process (Details are attached)
In 20220212, the URL (https://alien1961.xyz/) showed in 2 places of my Profile was changed to invalid non-sense strings in my unaware.
*(1) Bio column: https://t.co/KWnglNMbHp → Error “There is no content to display“,
*(2) Website column: https://t.co/egF5SmZhlk → Error “The information not found“
In 20220213, I asked them to investigate the falsification and spoofing. (Ev-2)
I attached the falsified profile’s screenshot (Ev-1) and “My Number Card”’s photo.
20220215, 1st answer. (Ev-3) We won’t respond because your ownership is suspicious.
20220216, I protested. (Ev-2) I’m the owner! Site destruction (Cracking)! spoofing!
20220216, 2nd answer. (Ev-4) It isn’t a spoofing policy violation, so no touch.
20220217, I protested. (Ev-2) Site destruction (Cracking)! spoofing!
20220217, 3rd answer. (Ev-5) It isn’t a spoofing policy violation, so no touch.
Explanation
Cracking is the unfair use of a computer system by invading, destroying, or falsifying it.
I sued a Cracking. Cracking includes falsification and spoofing.
In short, they ignored my natural plea. This is terrorism by non-human treatment.
★★There can be no chance that the two URLs in the Bio column and Website column become meaningless at the same time.
That is, it must be Cracking.
★★★Rewriting anothers’ profile while unaware is a clear violation.
It’s naturally a violation of laws*, insults, self-determination right, portrait right, etc.
*Act on Prohibition of Unauthorized Computer Access, Act-No. 128 of August 13, 1999.
*Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Sender,
Act-No. 137 of November 30, 2001
Invalid stringification causes reference errors and damages the author’s credit.
So, it’s a concealment effect and defamation.
Profiles are originally important. Especially in my case, the URL is so.
Because Twitter has a character limit, I have to explain it on an external site.
This Cracking is an implicit threat.
Dared to do clearly illegal and useless cracking without subsequent action.
That is, the real aim is an implicit threat that “we know everything about you like this.”
★The way of this Cracking is, of course, “spoofing”.
I do repeat that it’s impossible the 2 URLs become non-sense at the same time.
Conclusion
●(1) Before the policy, a platform cannot ignore Cracking.
As mentioned above, Cracking is all illegal, so there is no justice for ignoring it.
Anyway, the only clue to detect the Cracker is the updated history of my profile.
Only Twitter holds the key. However, they won’t provide it. It’s irresponsible idiotizing.
It’s a violation of Act-No. 137 due to their known and circulation of the falsified information.
Concealment of crime is naturally crime.
●(2) It cannot be said that it’s not a policy violation.
As follows, both hit the policy’s aim but don’t hit the specific example.
Can we call it “Not hit”? At least, it’s a policy flaw.
There are the following 2 policies in “Platform integrity and authenticity”.
★Impersonation policy
“another person is expressed by misleading methods or false information.”
★Platform manipulation and spam policy
“intended to artificially suppress information”, and
”platform manipulation to misleads others.”
●(3) Thus, Twitter’s answer is partial and inappropriate.
Also, sophisms such as “don’t hit” or “not qualified” are Japan-style Shut-out or Evasion.
In short, this is a conspiracy of a lawless society for me only.
PDF of the above text is here!