Yes, at this point in time we, the public, have little to go on and are playing the armchair quarter back position and the waiting game while we see if verifiable information, such as from a police investigation, comes out.

That said, this is the evidence in front of us, and we have no basis on which to confirm or deny it at this time.

I should point out that it is also what the victim's side would look like if they were signed into email but not twitter, saw the notifications coming into their email, and clicked on them to view the content in twitter.

Also interesting. Of course, that's also what it would look like if an intelligent person wanted to make a specific threat: Create a burner account, make the threat, be specific, don't make errors, delete the account. They probably also conducted their activity through a random open proxy server so it is untraceable. It is also what it would look like if the victim was on an alternate twitter account that they use for safety and didn't want to reveal that account for privacy reasons, so when they saw this tweet they logged out and took the screen cap.

There are plenty of opportunities for a figure such as her to screencap perfectly legitimate threats without needing to make one up. It would be somewhat more surprising if this were false than true, but at this time I'm holding judgement on either possibility until we find out more information.

Evidence that indicates a true claim of aggravated harassment does not preclude the simultaneous existence of false claims of the same.

That proves (presuming we believe the screencap, which I do) that aggravated harassment has occurred. It does not prove that she has never falsely claimed harrassment, but it isn't necessarily possible to prove such a (ludicrous, I think) claim.

How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence? The OP cannot find any existing evidence that Sarkeesian has lied or is willing to lie about threats. I suppose they could present their search result pages, but that doesn't actually prove anything.

As for evidence of the threats, here's a post she made on twitter highlighting an example of a specific threat

Verizon received $23 Billion over 6 years to finance the build-out of FiOS. Their construction budget didn't change from what it would have been without the grant, they built FiOS out in highly profitable areas and then stopped, not completing the project and shifting their focus to wireless. Then they managed to get a roughly $2 rate hike in some places to offset their claimed capital expenditure cost. (which was supposed to come from that grant that didn't appear to change the construction budget)

And all of this was rubber stamped.

So tell me again how they have a build out requirement?

They're not, and if every single drop of alcohol you drank was distilled from a drunk driver beating a drunk mommy and daddy, you'd have a valid comparison.

How does consumption of alcohol, which occasionally produces a negative outcome, compare with the production of kiddie porn, which always produces a negative outcome, an exploited child?

Distribution charges are generally filed against the person providing something, not the person receiving something.

While this finding impacts that problem, it is not the right way to tackle that problem. That problem consists of factually incorrect material that should not be there. This finding explicitly indicates that a party can demand that links to factually true reports that are still available to view online must be taken down. It goes far beyond the scope of reason.

Find a community of like minded people in which to share your interest fosters and normalizes your interest, whether that interest is antique cars, steam engines, British fine cuisine, or kiddie porn. There are some interests we do not want to foster and normalize.

• Apple: sportscar; moves you around quick and looks good while you do it. Useful for a lot of personal tasks.
• Windows: suv; a bit bloated and gas guzzling but reliable for basic user-level grunt work.
• Linux: truck; From tractor-trailer on down to pickup truck, great at heavy lifting but it has to be fairly stripped down (e.g., android) in order to do useful user-level work. Most people wouldn't use the heavy versions of it, but for those of us who need it, it is indispensable.

And here we have the crux of the Mac v. Linux argument.

A "medicine" marked "homeopathic" is technically regulated by the FDA, but isn't tested for safety or effectiveness.

I'm well aware of the theoretical basis of homeopathic medicine, but even so I already refreshed my memory with google and a few sites both supporting and debunking it. I even included a link to wikipedia in my original. If you want to dispute my claim, provide a citation and not a "google it yourself" response.

Homeopathy is based on the idea that a substance that causes the symptoms in normal quantities cures the symptoms in smaller quantities. Hence the dilution.

Quite a lot of homeopathic products use the C dilutions, in surprisingly high numbers. Of course, there are also a number of products that use small numbers of X (1/10th) dilutions as well. The 3X-6X dilutions do result in a product that contains the active ingredient. Of course, if I started with a 1g sample of a drug, say, tacrolimus, and performed a 3X dilution on it, I'd end up with a 1mg product. This isn't homeopathy, because that is well with in the dose-response curve for that drug and the drug at that level produces a direct and specific response in line with its properties.