Political and religious discrimination and defamation on Forum.hr

I started a debate regarding freedom of speech and discrimination based on political and religious grounds over on the History sub-forum. I was posting messages, expressing my wishes, and leaving comments complaining about how the moderator treats me there. The history of this place is one of pure discrimination—labeling people through constant punishment (warnings and bans) for every single "wrong" word uttered or opinion expressed. A huge number of users joined the discussion, sharing similar experiences; some even admitted they stopped posting on the History board altogether because of moderator Zoran Oštrić. Despite being called out directly, Oštrić didn't bother to join the conversation, nor did the higher authorities: the administration or the site owner. Even though he wasn't specifically targeted, a certain KLCCLK from the Politics section—where I don't even participate—chimed in just to comment on freedom of speech.
The next day, Nice locks the thread using an explanation that simply doesn't hold water, which prompted me to open a new topic to debunk her claims and provide concrete examples where Oštrić calls me an "extremist" and an "American who denies the victims of Auschwitz."
Nice keeps ignoring me and repeatedly locks the topic with reasoning that is equally nonsensical.

In her post, Nice claims, "Personally, I currently have no issue with Zoran Oštrić’s moderation style," which is a perfectly valid conclusion since she can't stand Zoran's bullying, doesn't actually engage in debates, and isn't the target of the topic herself... so I fail to see why she thinks she's in any position to judge.
I turned to her for help, pleading my case, but she just washes her hands of it like Pontius Pilate, praising Zoran’s style of moderation. She fails to see the problem with Zoran’s labeling of me, or the way he has graced other users with similar "epithets."

Even Anderlon, the site owner, failed to respond to my protest, which leads me to conclude that Zoran Oštrić has his protector in place—meaning Zoran Oštrić can now be even more draconian toward anyone with differing political or religious views.

That is why I am interested in the opinions of you legal experts: how do you view this situation? Is forum hr J. d.o.o., specifically its moderators and administration, violating its own rules by permitting the insults and labeling of other users? And just how far can this unchecked authority go under US laws that regulate these issues?

Can they really just do whatever they want because it's a private forum and we write anonymously—as the moderator from Politics, KLCCLK, suggests—allowing them to discriminate, slander, and insult dissenters without consequence? Or are they required to act in accordance with the positive regulations of the USA?

The general rules state that US laws apply on forum.hr, which makes sense given that the commercial entity forum hr J. d.o.o. was established under the Delaware Chancery Court... but surely those same laws should apply to the administration of this forum as well, shouldn't they?

I’m pretty damn sure that when they talk about "violence or hatred directed at a group of people or an individual because of their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, origin, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other characteristics..." they aren't talking about neo-Nazis.

Look, if you ask me, you should probably focus on the fact that people are trying to shove you into that category by mistake. Don't waste your breath worrying about whether neo-Nazis are being discriminated against.

Jacob Alvarez said:I’m pretty damn sure that when they talk about "violence or hatred directed at a group of people or an individual because of their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, origin, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other characteristics..." they aren't talking about neo-Nazis.

Look, if you ask me, you should probably focus on the fact that people are trying to shove you into that category by mistake. Don't waste your breath worrying about whether neo-Nazis are being discriminated against.

Exactly, and that’s precisely what I pointed out during my second attempt in the opening post:
"(3) Discrimination also includes placing a person in a disadvantaged position based on
a false assumption that there is a basis for discrimination under section 1 of this article.
Oštrić flagged me as a Nazi based on nothing more than a single comment I made regarding the victims of Nazi terror—and ever since, I’ve been punished for every "wrong" word or thought: he red-cards me, bans me, or just wipes my comments clean. And he does the same to others who have personally witnessed this and said they won't even visit the History PDF anymore because of Zoran. Others have mentioned they won't touch the Politics PDF either because of how the moderators behave there."

But it seems to me that the administration and the owner don't care about these "minor details" at all. To them, it’s perfectly normal for moderators in the History and Politics sections to slap labels on people the same way they used to do back in the old regime...
And once they’ve branded you a "Nazi sympathizer," it becomes incredibly easy to subject you to workplace-style bullying online.

And if you happen to strike back with a comment that hits a nerve, they just delete it and ban you—leaving you with absolutely no grounds to appeal to anyone else. Even if you manage to bypass a block, no higher authority actually takes you seriously.

KLCCLK claims they can get away with this because it’s a private forum and users act anonymously. I disagree—I don't think they're right. This is forum hr J. d.o.o., a commercial entity registered here in the US, and they are required to respect American laws as well as international conventions regarding freedom of speech.

It seems to me that you aren't the only ones acting like ultra-nationalist extremists trying to discriminate against others... the gentleman in question, Zoran Oštrić, whom we are discussing here, actually closed and blocked my own thread a long time ago—it was my personal account regarding Josip Broz Marshall—of which I am an unproven (legally speaking) first-degree relative—which is to say, a bit of a complicated lineage—simply because he can't stomach a version of the story about Marshall that differs from the official historical record.

…I certainly wouldn't mind if he actually possessed a grasp of historical facts, both the well-known ones and the obscure ones—perhaps then he could have provided a competent response to my old, locked-away topic... I was merely asking him for a verbal explanation as to why he decided to shut it down—but an answer that would meet my rather high standards for a reasoned explanation—explaining why one would close a discussion just because it deviates from the mainstream consensus through a more expanded rationale—NEVER MATERIALIZED.

...it doesn't matter whether you're labeled an extremist or a descendant of "communists," because the gentleman himself isn't even capable of explaining his own logic—how could a descendant of a leader like Josip Broz Marshall be a communist, even though he served as the President and leader of the communists... which is exactly the kind of thing they would want to write about, discuss, and debate... the gentleman didn't even seem to realize that my mother is Sophia Loren... or that I was brought to the States a long time ago through channels that weren't exactly strictly legal... as if I should just remain silent about my life story, even though it has been detailed extensively within the American misdemeanor and criminal justice systems.

p.s. I won't even get into the fact that I've received some lovely epithets from other forum members—calling me a lunatic—but even that is my right—to be a lunatic—I just hope I haven't left anyone hanging who hurled insults my way, especially since the hardest thing to grasp is often what is known by only a very small number of people.

I guess they finally realized there’s no such thing as actual free speech here—it’s just the freedom to echo whatever someone else thinks is acceptable. They’re scrubbing everything! And I don't mean hate speech or people glorifying evil; we can all agree that racial laws, concentration camps, and mass murder are crimes. But this? This is different.
You could try complaining to the ACLU or some ombudsman, but honestly, neither they nor the Almighty are going to save you if the powers that be decide they want you off this forum... even if you're being discriminated against until tomorrow morning.
That’s why I don't bother fighting the higher-ups—because it’s an echo chamber up there. It’s just like back in history when that other guy, Zoran, would just delete quotes whenever someone actually showed some work or said anything that didn't fit his specific version of "truth." Then, boom—they slap a label on you and say goodbye.

Now, look, I am 100% for sanctioning people who play dumb while praising segregationist laws, or those who cheer when 2,000+ people are encased in concrete in some mine. The first group gets kicked out instantly (which is fine), but for the second group, they’ll find 1,001 excuses to claim it's perfectly okay to wall up 2,000 human beings.

You might be discriminated against, sure, but you aren't going to find justice on a forum like this—you know that, right?

The easiest thing to do would be to just walk away from these toxic arguments—which is exactly what most people do—and let the crew run wild, but that’s just not right, and it’s definitely not an option for me. I’m also not interested in dragging them through the Delaware Chancery Court, but there has to be some way to put a stop to this absolute tyranny. I actually proposed holding democratic elections for a new moderator based on user nominations, but both the administration and the owner have completely ignored the suggestion... which honestly caught me off guard, considering some moderators were apparently chosen that very way. It seems Anderlon is incredibly sensitive to political and ideological issues, even though there isn't much activity in the politics or history sections that could actually threaten the site's traffic or bottom line.
Since I brought up the forum's business model, one rather glaring detail caught my eye—moderation compensation! I had always assumed that moderators were being paid for their work, yet Oštrić has claimed that moderation is purely voluntary, something you do for the "honor." Look, forum hr J. d.o.o. isn't some charity organization like the Red Cross; it’s a private company with its own revenue and expenses... so why on earth would anyone act as a free security guard for a site like this? What's the catch? Is it some kind of addiction that users can't control, making them willing to work for nothing? Isn't that essentially exploiting people who can't help themselves because they've become hooked on the forum? Or maybe the mods are receiving some sort of under-the-table financial incentive? How are the daily operating costs of the forum covered, aside from sponsor donations? I don't see any ads. Does anyone actually get a paycheck for working here, or is everything just treated as a hobby? If this is all just a game played on a volunteer basis, shouldn't the forum rules be a lot more relaxed?! But if it's not just a hobby, how is it possible that the moderator and admin are individuals tied to the old regime, defending the tenets of communist revolutions as if their very existence depended on it?...

You’re going to choose moderators the same way you’d choose a waiter at a diner—it's all democratic on paper, but we all know who actually calls the shots behind the scenes, whether we like it or not. Honestly, I used to avoid one specific subforum entirely because the moderator there was just... off. She’d obsess over nonsense and post all this stuff about certain non-profits. If it were up to me, I’d have sued her personally because she was just spreading blatant lies over and over. But then again, I knew I didn't pick her, so I couldn't exactly unseat her either.

Look, you aren't going to find justice here the way you want to, even if what’s happening is 100% discrimination. I’ve had myself banned from commenting on news sites—well, more than just one—simply because I had the nerve to reply to articles when they were spreading falsehoods. I was just trying to correct the record without being rude or using profanity, yet the comments filled with insults against the site's opponents stayed right at the top and nobody cared! So, what am I supposed to do? Go to court and ask a judge to let me post online?

It really boils down to one thing: either write your piece or walk away. Seriously, if everyone just walked away, maybe things would actually change. Though, even then, probably not—I remember when entire sections of forums would see a mass exodus of long-time members over some drama, and even after everyone left, absolutely nothing changed.

At the end of the day, an online forum is a private entity, and just like any business, they get to set their own rules. They hold all the cards here. You can cry foul and chase justice until you're blue in the face—kind of like how our former mayor used to say, "all the way to the finish line"—but it won't matter.
I totally get it, though. I know you have this urge to speak up, and when something gets deleted that isn't even a violation of the rules or the law, it leaves you feeling totally cheated. But seriously, forget about using "discrimination" as your argument to get anything done—because it’s just not going to work.

I hear you, but look—in a standard American diner, there’s a physical complaint book where any patron has the right to write down their grievances regarding the server or the service they received. If those complaints turn out to be legitimate, the owner can face some pretty massive penalties from the health department or local authorities. Here, however, the moderators can basically do whatever they please without being accountable to anyone—provided, of course, they stay on the good side of the owner. Just as a restaurant is a public space open to everyone regardless of their background, an online forum is a digital public square—an internet cafe where we come together for a bit of conversation. Segregating people based on political leanings, religion, or any other orientation shouldn't be the norm anywhere, least of all on an online forum that claims to be the largest in the country.
Zoran Oštrić and his crew, protected by Nice (which honestly caught me off guard since I heard he was a decent guy), essentially run a screening process first—they sniff you out immediately if your worldview doesn't align with theirs, and then they descend upon you like a pack of rabid dogs, leaving you with absolutely nowhere to turn. This kind of behavior has become completely normalized for them, and frankly, I find it impossible to stomach...
I’ve even toyed with the idea of organizing a class-action lawsuit for us oppressed users—or at least threatening one—just to bring some sense of reality back to them.
A unified front would certainly have better odds, and maybe then KLCCLK wouldn't find my references to international conventions and American laws so incredibly hilarious.

KLCCLK said:You can be happy or unhappy with this or that forum, or these or those moderators—on this specific board, you actually have the freedom to express that dissatisfaction, unlike most other sites, but those attempts to invoke declarations and such are just laughably ridiculous.

The truth is, while you technically *can* complain here, the option is purely a formality rather than a reality. Because if your complaint even manages to bypass the censorship of the very moderator who banned you and actually sees the light of day on PŽK, it will be rejected in 99.9% of cases.

Pick a history book... I mean, the absolute gold standard on a specific subject... a book that’s been proven to be the definitive authority on its topic
Then you start quoting from it—actual historical citations from that exact text

And honestly? It feels like being interrogated by the FBI... they’re Googling everything, cross-referencing page numbers, and nitpicking because an image isn't exactly 800x600 pixels
Just because some guy decides he’s decided a certain historical figure was a fascist
Even when the leading expert on that entire era, that country, and that specific war says, "No, actually, he wasn't"
And then there's me—I quote the book, and suddenly I'm the one getting grilled
We're talking about a book that's been considered the best-written account of the Spanish Civil War for fifty years
And what am I supposed to say at that point?
How are you even supposed to trust people like that when they're arguing over things I don't even study or claim to be an expert in?

Here we go again. Look, you guys are totally right, but honestly? Just let it go—they hold all the cards anyway. How many local coffee shops have gone under just because someone filed a formal complaint? For me, the best kind of "revenge" is simply never stepping foot in there again. I get it, though—it’s incredibly frustrating when you’re just trying to share some thoughts and someone arbitrarily shuts you down or labels you just because you cited an authoritative book or a respected scholar. But trying to argue with people like that is like trying to convince a die-hard believer that God doesn't exist. It’s just... impossible.
At the end of the day, this forum isn't really built for high-level debate. It's not some Ivy League seminar where everyone has an advanced degree and actually listens to logic. Even with some of those local historians you hear in small-town America—you know the type—where everything is just, "Oh, I know this because my uncle told me once." That’s basically the vibe here too...
The sooner you accept that they couldn't care less about rules or conventions, the better off you'll be. You can complain to a CEO who only cares about the bottom line, or you can try complaining to the city water department. Honestly? You're just shouting into the void either way...

Larry Diaz4
👍

Donna Cruz7 said:I hear you, but look—in a standard American diner, there’s a physical complaint book where any patron has the right to write down their grievances regarding the server or the service they received. If those complaints turn out to be legitimate, the owner can face some pretty massive penalties from the health department or local authorities. Here, however, the moderators can basically do whatever they please without being accountable to anyone—provided, of course, they stay on the good side of the owner. Just as a restaurant is a public space open to everyone regardless of their background, an online forum is a digital public square—an internet cafe where we come together for a bit of conversation. Segregating people based on political leanings, religion, or any other orientation shouldn't be the norm anywhere, least of all on an online forum that claims to be the largest in the country.
Zoran Oštrić and his crew, protected by Nice (which honestly caught me off guard since I heard he was a decent guy), essentially run a screening process first—they sniff you out immediately if your worldview doesn't align with theirs, and then they descend upon you like a pack of rabid dogs, leaving you with absolutely nowhere to turn. This kind of behavior has become completely normalized for them, and frankly, I find it impossible to stomach...
I’ve even toyed with the idea of organizing a class-action lawsuit for us oppressed users—or at least threatening one—just to bring some sense of reality back to them.
A unified front would certainly have better odds, and maybe then KLCCLK wouldn't find my references to international conventions and American laws so incredibly hilarious.

The truth is, while you technically *can* complain here, the option is purely a formality rather than a reality. Because if your complaint even manages to bypass the censorship of the very moderator who banned you and actually sees the light of day on PŽK, it will be rejected in 99.9% of cases.

If you walk into a coffee shop and the vibe just feels off... I don't know, maybe it's the atmosphere or something, you just stop going. You won't. Or, if it's that one lonely Starbucks in a small town where there isn't anything else for miles, I guess you just end up showing up a whole lot less often. Maybe once a month. It’s just how it works, I suppose.
If a bar owner actually has any sense, they’ll kick out the troublemakers before they drive away the regulars. It’s just common sense, really. You have to protect the people who actually bring value to the establishment—those respected folks whose presence alone elevates the whole vibe of the place. A smart manager isn't going to sit by and let some loudmouth or a nuisance ruin things for the decent crowd. I guess if you don't protect your reputation, you might as well close up shop.
An owner who just doesn't give a damn about how the business actually runs... well, they're basically inviting disaster. They’ll end up letting the place turn into some kind of magnet for troublemakers and people looking for a fight. It’s predictable, really. Those kinds of crowds eventually drive away all the decent customers, and before you know it, the foot traffic just hits rock bottom. I guess if there's actually any demand in that neighborhood, someone else will eventually swoop in and open a decent competitor nearby. Then, all the reasonable people—the ones who aren't looking for a confrontation—will just migrate to that new spot, leaving the original place to rot while the successful one thrives. It's just how things work, I suppose.
It’s the same deal for any business, really. Once you hit a certain level of traffic and engagement, forums and social media platforms... they just become businesses themselves. I guess that's just how the math works out.

First, they run this whole selection process... they can scent you out immediately if your worldview doesn't align with theirs. Then, it’s just an all-out assault, like a pack of rabid dogs, and you don't even have anyone to turn to for help. I guess they’ve just normalized this kind of behavior, which is something I simply cannot reconcile with.

I honestly think this forum is beyond repair. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it feels like we've passed the point of no return. I don't know. It just seems fundamentally broken now.
Why does this keep happening? I’ve been noticing this trend lately where people get banned more often—and I don't mean the trolls. I'm talking about the folks who write these incredibly thoughtful, detailed, and genuinely expert posts. You know the type. In the spaces I hang out in, they aren't even dropping insults or those cheap, primitive jabs. It just feels off. It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone can be a total professional and perfectly easygoing on one thread, only to suddenly transform from Jekyll into Mr. Hyde on another. I mean, maybe. I suspect it’s more likely that they just happened to say something that crossed some invisible line for the mods on a specific topic, and then—boom—instant ban. It seems a bit much, I guess.

By banning and driving away people like that... I don't know, maybe the whole point of this place just evaporates. Most people come here for a reason, I guess. They want to actually read something thoughtful or engage in an actual debate where someone uses logic instead of just shouting. If you push out the contributors who bring real substance to the table, you're basically stripping the site of its only value. It’s kind of a self-defeating cycle, isn't it?

The real issue with most modern forums and social media platforms today is how they steer everyone toward radicalism and these newly manufactured social norms. Once people take those extreme stances, they usually lose the ability to actually defend them with logic or real arguments. It’s a strange cycle, I guess. Because these new norms are treated as untouchable, followers of these ideologies get a free pass to insult and belittle the seasoned contributors—the people who actually provide substance to the discussion. And if those veteran users finally snap and fire back because the moderators aren't doing anything about the harassment? Well, then they’re the ones who get hit with a permanent ban. It seems like a calculated way to purge anyone holding an opposing view that can't be defeated by actual debate. Maybe that's just how it works now.
And when people like that finally pack up and leave, I suppose the forum regulars who only showed up to read their drama will head out the door right along with them. It's all connected, I guess.

Like I was saying earlier, there are consequences to all of this. People start out hopeful, thinking things might actually change, but eventually... they just walk away.
Once you lose that habitual user base—once people stop coming back because their experience was so miserable—it’s incredibly tough to win them back. Even if things supposedly get better later on.
Bad news travels much faster than good.

I’ve honestly toyed with the idea of organizing a class-action lawsuit for us downtrodden folks, or at least threatening one, just to try and snap some sense into them.

🤦🤦

😂😂😂

In the very first country in the world where free speech is touted as this sacred, legally protected pillar enshrined in the First Amendment, even a legally elected president and billionaire can be banned from the major social media platforms.
And this was someone with over a hundred million followers, a massive driver of traffic and revenue.
The thing is, he didn't objectively break a single rule of those platforms. Or, okay, if we really want to argue that certain controversial posts crossed a line, there were thousands of other users posting stuff that was infinitely worse, yet they haven't been banned to this day—and they won't be. Mostly because they fit the "correct" worldview.

So, I guess you have to ask yourself... what chance does an anonymous forum regular in a small corner of the country actually have of, say, fighting for their rights?
☕

I honestly don't see how anyone can look at the current state of affairs and remain indifferent—it’s absolutely maddening... The sheer lack of accountability in these institutions lately is nothing short of staggering. You’d think after everything we’ve been through, there would be some semblance of respect for the basic principles that hold this country together, but instead, we just get more bureaucracy and less common sense. It feels like we're constantly fighting an uphill battle against systems that were designed to serve us, yet somehow ended up working against us—it’s exhausting, really. And don't even get me started on the media coverage; it's all noise, all flash, and zero substance... Just a constant stream of distractions while the actual issues go unaddressed. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given how far things have drifted from what they used to be, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating... kaže:
Larry Diaz4
👍

Look, it’s simple math—if you walk into a coffee shop and the vibe is just... off, you stop going. Period. You don't go back to a place where you don't feel welcome or comfortable. And if that place happens to be the only Starbucks in your neck of the woods? Fine. Then you just make sure your visits are as rare as possible... you minimize them until they're practically non-existent. It's common sense, really.
Any bar owner worth their salt knows that if you want to stay in business, you have to kick out the troublemakers before they drive away the real customers. It’s basic math—really... If a proprietor is actually smart, they’ll protect their regulars and those high-profile guests who bring a certain level of class to the establishment. You can't just sit there and let some low-life agitators ruin the vibe and scare off the people who actually contribute to the reputation of the place... It's common sense, honestly.
A business owner who simply doesn't give a damn about how their establishment actually functions is essentially signing its death warrant—they’ll inadvertently turn their place into a magnet for the exact kind of toxic, combative crowd that drives away decent people... and once the regulars start fleeing to avoid the drama, revenue will inevitably crater. If there's actually any money to be made at that location, you can bet your life a competitor will pop up nearby just to scoop up all those displaced customers. Those sane, reasonable folks will flock to the new spot where things actually run smoothly, leaving the negligent owner to rot in an empty room full of nothing but trouble...
It’s the same rule for any business out there—plain and simple. Once a forum or a social media platform starts pulling in significant traffic and hitting certain revenue milestones, it stops being just a hobby or a community... it becomes a full-blown business.

I honestly think this entire forum is beyond repair...
Why is this happening? I’ve started noticing a pattern where users—people who write incredibly thoughtful, expert, and deeply detailed posts without ever resorting to insults or cheap shots—are getting banned more and more frequently. It’s baffling. From what I can see in my usual reading circles, these folks stay respectful and avoid those primitive, low-brow jabs that usually trigger moderation... It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone can be a total professional and perfectly composed on one topic, only to suddenly morph from Jekyll into Mr. Hyde on another... Honestly, it feels more likely that they simply said something that crossed some invisible line for the mods on a specific thread, and then—poof—they’re gone.

By banning and driving away high-caliber contributors like that, this forum loses its entire reason for existing—the very thing that brings people here in the first place... which is to actually read intelligent posts and engage in well-reasoned debates on just about any topic imaginable.

The fundamental problem plaguing modern forums and social media platforms today is their relentless drift toward radicalism and these manufactured, "new-age" social norms—norms that, quite frankly, nobody actually agreed to... and once people take these extreme stances, they lose the ability to defend them with any semblance of logic or actual argument. Because these platforms have embraced this new ideology, followers of these invented standards are essentially given a free pass to insult and belittle high-quality contributors—the real thinkers—with nothing more than a slap on the wrist if they get caught. But here’s the kicker: when those seasoned users finally snap and fire back against the insults—simply because the moderators are sitting on their hands and refusing to act—they’re the ones who face the hammer. They get hit with a permanent ban while the aggressors stay untouched. It’s a transparent tactic to purge the community of any ideas they can't defeat through intellectual debate... and it's honestly pathetic.
And when people like that finally pack up and leave—well, they take the forum regulars right along with them... those of us who actually show up just to read their nonsense... everything just falls apart.

Like I already pointed out above, all of this carries serious consequences—real ones. There comes a point where people start holding onto hope that things might actually change, but once that hope runs dry... they just walk away.
Once a user develops that certain habit—that reflexive tendency to steer clear because they’ve been burned before—it becomes an uphill battle to ever win them back... even if you fix everything and things finally start running smoothly. It’s incredibly difficult to regain that lost trust, even after the service improves significantly...
Bad news travels much faster than the good... it’s always the same story, isn't it? One mistake, one slip-up, and suddenly everyone is shouting it from the rooftops before anyone even has a chance to breathe...

🤦🤦

😂😂😂

In the very first country on Earth to take the concept of free speech and turn it into a legally protected cornerstone via the First Amendment—treating it like some kind of sacred, untouchable ideal—we have reached a point of pure absurdity. We are living in a reality where a legally elected President, a man who built an empire through sheer billionaire grit, can be effectively scrubbed from the largest social media platforms overnight... It’s just pathetic, really.
Even though he commanded a following of over a hundred million people—acting as a massive engine for both traffic and revenue...
Let’s be honest—objectively speaking, he didn't violate a single one of those social media platforms' terms of service. I mean, if we really want to get pedantic about the "controversial" nature of his posts or tweets being pushed past some imaginary line, then we have to address the elephant in the room: there are thousands of other users out there spewing things that are infinitely more vile and toxic than anything he ever wrote... yet they haven't been banned to this day—nor will they ever be. It’s pretty transparent, really. They stay on the platform simply because their worldview aligns perfectly with the "correct" narrative...

Maybe you should really think about what your actual odds are—I mean, realistically—as an anonymous user on some random internet forum in a country like America, trying to actually fight for your rights...
☕

Some of the much older regulars—people who used to post in the history sections back in the day—have mentioned that ever since Zoran Oštrić was appointed as a moderator, he’s driven away a lot of high-quality contributors. And I don't mean "problematic" types; quite the opposite—I mean the exact kind of people any forum owner would kill to have as members.
A smart bar owner hires bouncers specifically to protect their good customers, right? But that’s exactly what Anderlon and Nice are doing as administrators... they're doing the complete opposite.
On top of that, Oštrić has surrounded himself with an echo chamber of ideological allies—people he lets get away with trolling, insults, and constant provocation—but the second you hit back with the same energy, you're penalized and exiled. They act like religious inquisitors while simultaneously spitting on anyone they label "fascists." It’s playground-level communication, honestly... not at all the scientific or academic standard this place supposedly aims for.
It doesn't even make sense from a business perspective; as an owner, you're basically sawing off the very branch you're sitting on.

How did I end up being labeled a "fascist sympathizer" and a denier of historical atrocities?! First, it was because I shared stories my grandmother told me about what the local resistance fighters did when they came through our small town on various missions—everything from cleaning out attics (the so-called "sausage makers") to dealing with "enemies of the state" hiding in the shadows or up in the rafters. Because of that, both I and my grandmothers were branded liars and enemies of the "anti-fascist" revolution—a movement that, in that specific part of the country, had absolutely nothing to do with true anti-fascism.
And I became a "denier" simply because, while analyzing demographic losses during WWII, I cited the work of a professional demographer and his data. That was apparently a crime in itself—my post was deleted just to prevent me from "spreading lies" against long-established narratives (even though the exact casualty counts from those camps and total losses will likely never be fully known).
I was also called a sympathizer because I quoted the number of victims from certain terror raids (citing an anti-fascist source!) to point out that in one specific village, they only targeted the leaders of a rebellion, whereas elsewhere they slaughtered everyone involved. Mentioning that they "only killed the leaders" was an unforgivable sin to Zoran Oštrić—enough to finally toss me into the "enemy camp" and start this ongoing persecution for every single "wrong" word or opinion I express.

Look, I never denied the victims, and I certainly wasn't inciting anyone to overthrow a newly elected president like Trump.

I know that as an individual, I can't change anything, which is why the idea of a class-action lawsuit crossed my mind—similar to how people in Switzerland took on powerful bankers when no one thought they stood a chance—or even a constitutional challenge. After all, a single forum, which is just a private commercial enterprise, shouldn't be allowed to use its rules and discriminatory practices to act as if it's more powerful than the laws of the United States. Someone has to lead this fight.

And frankly, it seems like there might be enough evidence here for labor law courts to take interest regarding the exploitation of forum addicts, who are essentially being used as unpaid bouncers for the site... all under the guise of "volunteering," no doubt.

Every single internet forum has its own brand of lunatics, on both sides of the moderation line. Honestly, real discussions happen face-to-face; the internet is just for surface-level crap and mindless trolling. People online don't seem to grasp the weight of what they say when they’re hiding behind a screen, feeling all safe and anonymous. In the real world, you don't get these weird communication breakdowns because people who act out usually get shut down or dealt with immediately. It makes you wonder why these types even end up on forums in the first place—you’ve got guys with 50k or 100k posts who basically live on message boards instead of actually interacting with real people. Then, suddenly, everything comes full circle. 😉 Forget looking for a normal, objective, or open conversation on a forum. That kind of thing doesn't exist online. You have to do it in person.