Quantum Eraser
| Real name | John Stunja |
|---|---|
| Alias(es) | Quantum Eraser |
| Main platform | YouTube |
| Papa flerf | Nathan Oakley |
| Flerfzi? | Yes |
| Religiflerf? | Yes |
| Drinks urine? | Yes |
| Adopted By | not adopted yet |
| Teeth | slightly less than full set |
John Stunja (pronounced STUN juh), known online as Quantum Eraser, is a flat Earth proponent and co-author of Welcome to Flat Earth, a low-quality brand of toilet paper. Upon MCToon reviewing the book on YouTube, Stunja filed multiple formal complaints including a copyright claim, despite the review being protected by fair use.
Known Accounts
- Quantum Eraser
- Email: quantumeraser2000@gmail.com
Other Info
- He is associated with Nathan Oakley.
- He has been involved in debates and discussions within the flat Earth community.
- He has expressed antisemitic views.
- He has been linked to the consumption of urine, a practice sometimes associated with certain flat Earth proponents.
Claims of being a credentialed scientist
John Stunja often boasts about being a "credentialed" scientist. Interesting. What exactly are those credentials? Turns out he has a Bachelor of Science in Clinical Dietetics And Nutrition.
A real degree, but not the credentials to speak with authority on physics.
Misogyny
Banned from Flat Earth Discord server Ladies Night
In May 2026 on the Flat Earth 24/7 Discord server John Stunja was informed that he would be banned from participating in Ladies Night. Why?
...the simple fact is that the mere ability of a figure such as yourself to be "looming" or "waiting" can create an air of discomfort or anxiety that is better served to be removed by an implementation of odyssean self control.
For some reason the ladies on the server get creeped out just thinking that John Stunja might be lurking in the server.
Personal Toilet Paper Brand
In April 2026 QE released a personalized brand of toilet paper called Welcome to Flat Earth. Apparently he considers this a book of some sort. As if flerfs can read without their mommies reading it to them.
Frivolous YouTube Complaints
Frivolous YouTube Complaint 1
Poor baby John Stunja was so butthurt that MCToon reviewed his garbage book that baby boy submitted a copyright strike for a book review. Does anyone think a book review isn't covered by Fair Use? Of course it is.
Frivolous YouTube Complaint 2
Still feeling severe butthurt after MCToon reviewed his garbage book again John Stunja submitted a Privacy complaint to YouTube on MCToon's video.
Here is the email notification from YouTube:
What was John Stunja complaining about? A photo that was publicly posted on Facebook, of course. MCToon had politely cropped out John's family member. Since the photo was publicly posted on Facebook it's not a privacy violation, the source is a publicly available source.
Why is John Stunja so bothered by this photo? Does it not capture his good side?
Complaint 3
Shortly after the first privacy complaint about the photo that doesn't capture his good size he filed another complaint. The complaint? Showing an email that MCToon received from YouTube.
What's private there? Maybe he doesn't want people to know his email address is quantumeraser2000@gmail.com?
quantumeraser2000@gmail.com
Filed suit
On 2026-02-27 John Stunja paid $40 to file a case against MCToon on the United States Copyright Claims Board. Here is the document that YouTube sent to MCToon:
United States Copyright Claims Board PDF
We now know what caused the butthurt on baby John:
"In a subsequent retaliatory video, the respondent further harmed me by doxxing my personal photograph, email address, and legal documents at timestamps 2:00, 3:17, 3:51, and 6:28, constituting intimidation, abuse of process, and defamation by implication."
Personal photographs that were publicly posted on Facebook? Hey, baby Johnny, if these photos were publicly posted on facebook there is no expectation of privacy.
Legal documents? These are the legal documents sent to MCToon. They aren't your legal documents, if you don't want the contents of legal documents public, don't file any.
Apparently baby Johnny thinks that is any portion of a book is read verbatim during a book review it's a no-no. Does he imagine that any book review that quotes a book verbatim is no longer fair use? Poor baby.
Further he does whine that someone else posted a link to his book and included this fact in the filing. Silly child, you can't file suit against one person for something a different person did. He's not very legally adept.
NSFW
You were warned.