It would be funnier were it not for the contents.
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
108 points (99.1% liked)
196
5739 readers
433 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think it's impossible that someone who has the authority to blackening the Epstein Files is that dumb/unknowingly. This can't be coincidence.
It's not coincidence. The admin is full to the brim with moron cronies that only have their jobs because they are willing to do whatever trump wants. This is the natural result of hiring people for their politics rather than their skills and experience.
But I thought they just replaced the head with a bootlicker not the workers. Maybe this was "a matter for the boss" situation. I remember some irl at work. There is always a 50/50 chance this ends badly.
Nah, they also replaced a shitload of workers too. Remember all of the DOGE cuts earlier this year? There was also the inclusion of multiple hiring questions regarding "how you will further the president's interests" (or something, can't remember the exact verbage rn).
A little bit of "Oopsie! Did I fail to destroy the evidence of your crimes correctly? So sorry." going on I think.
While the crimes this has brought to light are horrible... I'm also kinda mad at the software developer(probably Adobe but correct me if I'm wrong). Why do you store the text under a black box? Maybe while I have the document open but once I save it delete it since I confirmed I want the black boxes.
Or maybe have a "redact" function in addition to the highlighter to handle this situation. In that case highlight the text, click redact, text is deleted, and a black box replaced it(plus ensures the box is right size, I imagine with a box not covering say the bottom few pixels of a piece of text you could analyze and likely determine what is under the box).
It's probably a PDF file but probably not created with Acrobat. Acrobat actually has redaction features which will purge the redacted text.
What they probably did was they just took a word doc, highlighted the text black so it isn't readable in printed form, and then saved it as a PDF under the assumption that the file could not be edited to make the text visible again. Basically, very low tech literacy, oblivious to the fact that the text is all still there.
Tangentially related, but potentially also worth mentioning that Adobe hasn't controlled the PDF standard for a number of years now. It's now an open format managed by ISO, though Adobe still owns a few patents related to PDFs that make Acrobat a pain in the ass and viable alternatives hard to find.
Secondary fun fact to the above is that MacOS has its own built-in PDF viewer, by virtue of the entire UX of the OS being built on the PDF standard, entirely separate from Adobe's implementation.
Interesting but even more disturbing...