Loading...
Vixen Valentino delves into the latest trolling tactic deployed against her and GMWatch. By Jonathan Matthews
One of the best troll busters weâve come across goes by the name of âVixen Valentinoâ â the nom de guerre of âan environmental activist with a smart mouth who cares about leaving a less-shitty world behind to her kids.â Vixen uses an online pseudonym for her blogging, tweeting and Substack because calling out corporate PR agents, âfake skepticsâ, and assorted poseurs and bullies, tends to make you a prime target for smears, bigotry and intimidation.
We at GMWatch know this from experience. When, for instance, my research exposing Monsantoâs use of AgBioWorld as a key conduit for black propaganda ended up in The Guardian, a leading AgBioWorld contributor promptly claimed I was linked to a âterrorist groupâ. And when I criticised a notorious pro-GMO troll for using demeaning graphics and Hitler memes, he promptly made me part of those memes and started posting defamatory accusations, which the industry-backed Genetic Literacy Project then turned into articles profiling us.
Although itâs harder to target someone who uses an alias, Vixen has still been harassed numerous times, as she explains in a guest article she has just written for the award-winning investigative reporter Paul Thackerâs Disinformation Chronicle. The article focuses on the latest attack on Vixenâs Twitter account by a Monsanto-loving troll best known, in Vixenâs words, for her âdisgruntled pit viper actâ.
Mary Mangan from Somerville in Massachusetts is a scientist who, Vixen notes, âspends enormous amounts of time online promoting the interests of the agrochemical industryâ. So much so that Mangan has been humorously dubbed âSomervilleâs favourite pesticide sales ladyâ.
But Manganâs reach is far from parochial. She sits on the advisory board of the (Cornell) Alliance for Science, the PR outfit funded by the Gates Foundation to propagandise for GM crops worldwide. Mangan also writes for groups like Biofortified and the Genetic Literacy Project, which Monsanto considers its âindustry partnersâ. There, on social media, and in an endless stream of comments under blogs and articles, Mangan posts scathing attacks on critics of the agrochemical industry, like Guardian journalist Carey Gillam â a favourite target of Monsantoâs. Mangan also feeds material for hit pieces to reporters, in at least one case in consort with Monsantoâs former director of communications, Jay Byrne, infamous for orchestrating attacks on industry critics.
But Manganâs latest means of targeted harassment involves not smears but copyright claims â claims that, as Vixen explains, were earlier piloted on GMWatch by a long-time associate of Manganâs, the Hitler-meme loving troll mentioned earlier:
âSome years back, Mangan was often associated on Twitter and in the comment sections of news articles with Maryland public school teacher Stephan Neidenbach, the founder of We Love GMOs and Vaccines (WLGV). Neidenbach is another well-known troll and self-professed Monsanto fan boy, who was profiled by the Disinformation Chronicle in 2021.
âMangan likely learned from Neidenbachâs example of how to abuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and intimidate anyone who pointed out her outrageous behaviour defending Monsanto, GMOs, and glyphosate. Neidenbachâs ploy began after the UK-based nonprofit GMWatch posted an article on him with photos showing Neidenbach posing for a selfie while wearing a Monsanto t-shirt. Another photo showed Neidenbach socializing with Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science and University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, whom the New York Times exposed for taking money from Monsanto, while â you guessed it â denying ties to Monsanto.
âTo erase the record of his behavior, Neidenbach contacted GMWatchâs webserver and claimed the photos he posted publicly of himself promoting Monsanto and rubbing elbows with other industry lackeys were copyrighted. Despite the photos complying with fair use laws, GMWatch removed the images to avoid legal hassles and getting their website shut down.
âGMWatch countered by hiring an artist to produce the photos of Neidenbach in caricature form. I personally found the result to be a quite satisfactory way to resolve the complaint.â
Vixen Valentino makes an obvious target for Neidenbach-style harassment, not just because of how fearlessly she calls out the industry mouthpieces, fake skeptics and trolls that she tracks across the net, but because she always keeps the receipts â often in the form of screenshots â and is well known for peppering her blogs and tweets with impactful images documenting her points.
So itâs no great surprise that Mary Mangan recently complained to Twitter that Vixen had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In what Vixen calls Manganâs typically âcalm and reasonable fashionâ, Mangan claimed that: âVixen Valentino, repulsive anti-vaxxer and crank, is attempting to harass me â a scientist â by using my image and my work. She does not have permission to use them, they are my property.â
Needless to say, there are a number of things wrong with this. For instance, having read Vixenâs blog over many years and long followed her on Twitter, I can attest that she is no âanti-vaxxerâ, repulsive or otherwise. But then Neidenbach, Mangan and others hurl âanti-vaxxerâ routinely at critics even when it is clearly untrue.
More importantly, there are two obvious problems with the copyright claims that Mangan and Neidenbach have been making. The first is, as Vixen notes, that these are images that they themselves have spread on the net without any proprietary claims. Vixen gives the example of a screenshot she posted of the slideshow Mangan used to promote Monsantoâs side of things on GMOs to the Boston Skeptics. By claiming copyright on Vixenâs screenshot, Mangan got Vixen locked out of her Twitter account, even though Mangan herself had posted these slides to sites, like SlideShare, that allow anyone to download the entire slideshow for free.
Mangan even claimed copyright on a screenshot Vixen tweeted of the results of a Google Image search. Because this screenshot contained a couple of small images of Mangan among a whole series of thumbnail pics of various other Mary Mangans, Vixen found herself locked out of her Twitter account once again â for merely posting what anyone who Googles âMary Manganâ is likely to see. The irony was that Vixenâs only reason for tweeting the screenshot was to underline the absurdity of Manganâs copyright claims.
The other problem with what Neidenbach and Mangan have been doing is that they themselves have not only shared other peopleâs photos on social media but have done so to intimidate them. Neidenbach, for instance, as payback for our reporting on his trolling, used a photo of me holding a cup of tea â my then Facebook profile pic â in order to pair me with Adolf Hitler.
Vixen gave me another example of Mangan and Neidenbach using other peopleâs images to harass them. It involved photos of children gardening that a nurse had tweeted about and posted on her popular Facebook page about organic gardening. One of the photos shows the nurseâs nephew gathering seeds from a large sunflower that he and his classmates grew in their âVictory Gardenâ at his pre-school. The other photo of children gardening was one that a woman in Texas, who the nurse sent seeds to, had shared with her. Mangan and Neidenbach retweeted these photos, falsely claiming that the nurse had no connection with any of the children and had actually stolen the photos she tweeted. Inevitably, Neidenbach also claimed that the nurse was âanti-vaxâ, which once again wasnât true.
Neidenbach subsequently photoshopped another of the nurseâs tweets so as to replace an image of her nephew in her garden with a photo of Black slave children hoeing a field. He then posted the doctored tweet on Facebook, leading the nurse to suffer such a barrage of abuse for her supposed racism that she ended up deleting her Facebook account. (Read the full story of what happened here.)
In other words, Neidenbach and Mangan object to our calling attention to their antics by using images they posted online, despite their having used other peopleâs images to troll them. As Vixen says, âThereâs a word for this I thinkâ¦? Oh right, hypocrisy.â
However absurd their copyright claims, they can still be an effective means of censorship. That's because Internet companies often err on the side of extreme caution when faced with any suggestion they might be held liable for hosting content involving copyright infringement.
When Neidenbach told our webserver we had violated his copyright by reproducing images such as the one of him in a Monsanto t-shirt, they were willing to let us present our counter arguments but still insisted that unless we could either prove we held the copyright to the images or had written permission from Neidenbach to use them, we had to remove them â otherwise they would close our website down.
Vixen found that Twitter acted still more defensively, locking her out of her account until she agreed to the removal of the disputed images. They did give her the chance to contest Manganâs claim of copyright violation, but this placed her in an impossible position. In any such counterclaim, she had to include her legal name, her full home address, and her phone number, and all of that information would be passed along to Mangan, who could obviously share it with anyone she liked.
That wasnât an option for Vixen, who blogs and tweets anonymously because she knows of others who have challenged industry supporters and then had âtheir businesses attacked with fake reviews; had their personal information doxxed including full names, physical address and spouseâs social security number; had pornography sent to them; and had pictures of family members photoshopped to make them appear to be Nazis or slave owners.â
All of this has left Vixen thinking âsocial media simply isnât a fair playing field, and bad actors have learned how to exploit the systemâ. But that doesnât mean she is going to let them scare her into silence or stop her calling out industry stooges.
That's why she moved her blog to Substack after Substack refused to censor a Disinformation Chronicle profile of Stephan Neidenbach that included images, like the Monsanto t-shirt one, that he is desperate to suppress. And because Substack doesnât facilitate these kind of abusive copyright claims, Vixenâs own article for the Disinformation Chronicle contains images that Mangan is keen to censor.
We canât do the same on our site, but we can respond, as we did to Neidenbach, with satire, and by joining with Vixen in exposing these trolling tactics. As Vixen says, âIf my cautionary tale exposes these tactics and helps other people bust these frauds, then my work here is done.â
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Vixen Valentino, as well as to Paul Thacker at the Disinformation Chronicle, for letting us republish extracts from Vixenâs article. You can read her article and view the accompanying pics here but youâll need a Disinformation Chronicle subscription to read it in its entirety.
More from Vixen Valentino
Check out Vixenâs blog, her articles on Medium, and her new Sick of It All Substack.
Read this article on the GMWatch website for links to sources and more information.
|
Loading...
Loading...