Looking at the history of the one counter currently showing elevated levels (northjerseymike), it looks like the current value is well within variance of historical levels. I jumped back 10, 50, and 100 pages and without plotting, it didn't seem anything is notable about more recent data.
Also... why wouldn't the feds just say they're inspecting infrastructure and avoid the entire question...?
IMO this is almost certainly a commercial LIDAR mapping effort plus right wing conspiratorial hysteria.
The pages are sorted by date... I ended up going back roughly 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.
A single value at a moment in time doesn't mean anything at all. You need to see the variance over time. And you need to trust the source data. The only "dangerously high" readings I saw were from counters that had no name, no history, no identifier, no additional values.
This theory makes no sense from the get-go and this "evidence" is extremely low quality.
Ok so you went back a day, saw the ongoing sky high readings from multiple sources which you were apparently trying to claim didn't exist, now acknowledge they exist, and now you want to claim they don't mean anything. Ok.
1. People couldn't buy BAT to send at the time (Dec. 2018) of the Tom Scott affair, all the tokens were virtual from our user growth pool, subject to our terms. No user funds. This does not excuse the right-to-publicity infringement that I addressed in another comment replying to you, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42379166, but that wasn't your false claim here, so stick to your "collects money" canard, please.
2. Again with "secretly modifies referral links" canard. No, not "links", exactly two typed in domain names in the address bar, and no one can keep a secret with a URL attribute you can see in the same address bar, via devtools, and with network monitoring; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42354392. Think through your own argument more, please — no ready-fire-aim.
3. Injecting ads would be noticed by users, but you won't find anyone who ever saw us "replace" or "inject ads into websites". We tested the tech with placeholders on Slashdot in early 2016, but the placeholders were not ads and the test ended. Lack of evidence is enough here under normal rules of reality and discourse, or else this is an "are the ad injectors in the room with us now?" joke.
We'd have been roasted and likely sued if we had done any such "replace" or "inject" thing without publisher opt-in. Again, I urge you to think through your criticisms before replying carelessly.
EDIT: I'd forgotten about the NAA's "cease and desist" letter sent in April 2016, which was not actually a C&D even though its PDF filename called it that, because we never did anything to cease or desist from. See
The NAA (now News Media Alliance) complaint to us, misnamed a Cease & Desist Letter, went away. Later in 2016, this same group tried complaining to the FTC about Brave and Opera, see https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a802b19a-7ba0.... That complaint also went nowhere.
Hm, last time someone challenged you, you responded with
>I’m not here to argue with socialists
And told them to read a book instead of asking your opinions. Sounds like you’re just here to whine about things you don’t like and insert your opinions.
Really just depends on the quality of the other person's argument. Good to see that you're spending time going over my post history though, makes me feel special. Would never cross my mind in a million years to click on your profile and start scrolling.
reply