Talk:Scientology and the Internet

Usability citation
"This makes the newsgroup virtually unreadable via online readers such as Google Groups, although more specialized newsreading software that can filter out all messages by specific "high noise" posters make the newsgroup more usable.[citation needed]" What sort of citation is needed? At the time of the sporgery, Google didn't yet have Groups; Usenet was read on custom software with sophisticated killfiles. The sporge came from a small number of IP addresses which made it easy to filter out - people would post lists of sporge addresses as soon as they were identified. Does it just need a link to how killfiles work or something?71.204.167.229 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A link to Kill file seems perfectly reasonable to me. Jamoche (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Update tag still needed?
The update tag was put on this article a little over 4 years ago by with nothing added to the talk page to indicate what needed updating. There have been a lot of changes since then (72 edits). Do we still need this tag? Grorp (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This article still radiates a strong impression of being like a time capsule from the late 2000s. Everything from the infobox spotlight to the listed incidents are old news. While Scientology certainly has mostly fallen out of public discourse (though not really obscure), the edits you cited have been little window dressings. I'm sure there's more that happened even in the past ~4 years, although I don't particularly care enough to trudge through. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for that feedback. I'll add this article to my work list and look at it with that in mind. In the meantime, I directed the 'tag' to this section for the benefit of anyone else wondering about the reason for the tag. Grorp (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'update' tag after making several updates to this article, including adding an "Overview" section which should address your concerns about time capsule, as well as the naming of the article (which I feel strongly should be moved back to Scientology versus the internet). The overview frames the time period and ends it in the late-2000s as the end of the war.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Original article title - Scientology versus the Internet
The original article title was Scientology versus the Internet, from 2002 through 2011. Though the page has been edited by over 500 editors (most edits made 2006-2008), the article title was changed in 2011 to Scientology and the Internet after a short suggestion plus 1 single support vote. It had been listed on Requested moves for one week. I think the page move (rename) was premature, was based on insubstantial reasons/opinions, and incorrectly conveys the concept as described in the article. In my opinion, the current title (Scientology and the Internet) needs changing.

The archive pages have a few earlier discussions on the topic of title (in order of earliest to latest):


 * Archive 4#Scientology versus the Internet is not a common name, a 2006 proposal to move which resulted in 'noconsensus'.
 * Archive 2#"Scientology versus the Internet" is biased, POV and grossly inaccurate, February 2007
 * Archive 3#Title: Scientology and the Internet versus Scientology versus the Internet, January 2008
 * Archive 3#One more whack at "Scientology vs. the Internet", February 2008
 * Archive 4#Article title?, March 2011
 * Archive 4#Requested move, August 2011

To sum up the arguments:
 * Those against "versus the Internet" argued that Scientology wasn't against the entire internet.
 * Those for "versus the Internet" argued that Scientology was waging a war against the internetians who were using the internet to expose Scientology, and support "versus" by pointing out the plethora of lawsuits filed by Scientology against individuals and companies in order to remove critic information.

There were three parties involved in the war:
 * 1) Critics, who wanted to expose Scientology,
 * 2) Scientology, who wanted their 'scriptures' off the internet, and who had the money and muscle to use the legal system and law enforcement to get their way, and
 * 3) Generic netizens (with no prior nexus to Scientology) who wanted to be allowed to discuss and LOL over stuff on the internet without interference, and the more Scientology pushed to get their materials removed, the harder these people pushed back and mirrored everything.

Mike Rinder summarizes the war in his book. Rinder says he was put on the case the instant the OT levels appeared on the internet in December 1994.

"This was a huge flap. ... At the outset, it was unclear who was responsible, and all hands began a frantic effort to nail down the perpetrators. ... We tapped any scientologist who had computer expertise and engage a group of PIs to collect evidence. This was both high priority and highly confidential. ... [Five] people were identified as suspects, and lawsuits were filed against them. In February 1995, federal marshals raided their homes and seized their computers. ... The filing of these lawsuits was a strategic blunder. It set the fledgling internet on fire and activists began appearing from all over, vowing to destroy scientology and end its assault on 'free speech'. RTC launched a new — and virtual — assault that scientology has never recovered from: legal threats, lawsuits, and attempted criminal prosecutions proved to be no match for the anonymous worldwide information dissemination vehicle that was the ever-expanding internet. Scientology was losing the battle to keep the OT levels secret, ... databases proliferated containing all copyrights works, all Hubbard lectures, and then internal scientology documents. ... we soon understood that we were under seige ... [our lawyers] sent out threats to every person who posted the materials, to the [ISPs], and even to the phone companies that gave access to the internet. But that resulted in more sites appearing. It was ultimately a hopeless war ... Eventually, even we had to admit we had lost. We were playing a never-ending game of Whac-A-Mole — virtually everything ever written by Hubbard or about Scientology has now been posted on the internet."

The content of this article is about the "war" against the critics in order to keep certain information off the internet. The article is not about Scientology's use of the internet, nor their propaganda or marketing efforts on the internet. It's not about their own websites, or the ads Scientology runs that show up on Youtube videos at random. It's not about Scientology's creation of websites to slander/libel/deadagent specific critics. So using the all-encompassing "and" in "Scientology and the internet" is a misnomer, is too broad/far-reaching, and really doesn't convey the idea of a specific targeted "war" against certain enemies. The word "versus" does. The part "the internet" was because one of the parties in the dispute were the vast group of netizens that got involved because of their dedication to free speech and not because of any position for or against Scientology.

Grorp (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed by the effort you poured in here, although I'm not educated enough in the subject to raise any particular points beyond endorsing a  'Move' to "Scientology vs. the Internet", or an equivalent title. I just believe that sources from at least the rise of normalized mainstream social media onward (c. 2015 AD) are pertinent to the relevancy of this article. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)