5 ms·

I'm going to try to articulate a position that I think that I understand but is not mine, so please bear with me. Let's put aside what is "legal" and focus on

I'm going to try to articulate a position that I think that I understand but is not mine, so please bear with me. Let's put aside what is "legal" and focus on what is "socially desirable" business behavior from the perspective of Anon. MasterCard, as a private entity, has wide leeway in how it chooses to deal with other private entities such as Wikileaks. Is this socially desirable? While I have no special insight into what Anon is thinking, I would surmise that they are not pleased that private entities are restricting free-flow of information and acting as a state's agents even when not compelled to do so by the force of law. We've heard from many business (Amazon, PayPal, etc) that blocking WikiLeaks (and consequently inhibiting free distribution of classified US documents and secret corporate information) is, at its core, a profitable business decision. I would guess that Anon is trying to send a message that such an "anti-freedom" decision (scare quotes intentional) can instead become very expensive.

marknutter 16y ago
But what is "socially desirable" is a completely subjective thing though. There could be a small group of Anons that think banning gays from entering the military is "socially desirable" and use that as a basis for taking down websites of companies who work with the military. It's Mastercard's choice whom they do business with, and by launching this attack Anon is only further solidifying the misguided popular belief that Wikileaks is akin to a terrorist organization. It may seem like a victory in the short term, but in terms of Wikileak's PR I think it's a huge setback.
- borism 16y ago
  It's Mastercard's choice whom they do business with No it's not.
  - jlgosse 16y ago
    I'm really interested in this, and I'm confused as to why people are voting you up. You provided an answer with absolutely no evidence to support what you said and people find the answer either, a) Helpful or b) Interesting. Can you explain how it isn't their choice? Mastercard, VISA and American Express turn down applicants ALL the time, so doesn't this go against what you are saying here?
    - defen 16y ago
      I'm not sure what his point was, but technically it's true, at least in the U.S. There are a host of "protected classes", and if you refuse to do business with someone because they're in that protected class, you get in Big Trouble. This includes race, color, gender, age, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
      - marknutter 16y ago
        It's not true, otherwise signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegal. You're referring to laws against discrimination based on race, sex, or disabilities. This says nothing about refusing service to people for other reasons, such as a rowdy bar patron or someone who violates Terms of Service.
        jbooth 16y ago
        It's generally understood that refusing to do business with someone for political reasons, unless the person's politics involve genocide or something, is against the social contract. Not illegal, but generally not approved of by anyone (unless you have the whole US media playing the mccarthy card against the person, apparently).
        neilc 16y ago
        I think there are many people who, given the chance, would not do business with WikiLeaks (on the grounds that their actions are perceived to be against the US national interest and potentially putting lives in danger). So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this would be "generally understood ... to be against the social contract."
        jbooth 16y ago
        If you're a small business and people can take their money elsewhere, that's one thing, if you're one of two giant corporations providing a vital service, that's another.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  The only people who are going to blame this on Wikileaks are the people who are uninformed enough to already think they're a terrorist organization anyway. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about what such people think because unless you can get a spokesmen on Fox News you can't change their mind anyway.
corin_ 16y ago
It's not a dissimilar concept to strike action, in that it may well have a negative effect on customers, but is believed to be neccesary none-the-less. I fully support unions and strikers, however I'm not sure how I feel about this kind of action. The similarity ends with differences such as strikers have names, faces, spokespeople, they decide together if they are for or against striking, it isn't one or more people with nothing to do with the company who makes the decision.
- varjag 16y ago
  The difference might not be as huge, Round Robin was not invented for nothing. Just that the online world has more opportunity for anonymous sabotage.
- noblethrasher 16y ago
  Strike actions have symmetry and boundedness. Withholding labor obviously affects both the company and the workers and the action can only go so far since both sides need each other to survive. This kind of action is asymmetric and unbounded: Anon can hurt MasterCard without cost to himself (presumably) and he can theoretically carry it out for as long as he wants. This can only lead to some kind of escalation if MasterCard (and similar entities) want to survive.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    Agreed. My comparison was purely in reply to the concept of "you shouldn't hurt a company to improve things, because it hurts their customers too."
    - ghostDancer 16y ago
      Well the you can compare it with commercial sanctions to Cuba, Irak or North Korea that the international community don't suffer too much (they're not big players) but the people of those countries do, not only their governments.
      - 16y ago
ebaysucks 16y ago
"Socially desirable" is the right way to think about it. Law has always been "mob rule", with competitive courts competing to define what this entails. "Legal" just means the government agrees with it. The state claimed a monopoly on "law" along the way. The tension we see today is that the "legal" does not represent the "socially desirable" / "law" anymore. Granted, a binary offline/online result using DDOS attacks is a very rude reputation system, but the reputation feedback processes can be improved upon by competition (semantic web startups anyone?).
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Law has always been "mob rule", with competitive courts competing to define what this entails. Exactly. In the US we have a system of checks in balances to pit competing mobs against each other in a way such that it is sufficiently difficult for a mob to rule over a large population. But if the mob gets sufficiently large, they can rule. And likewise, for small geographic regions we often do have mob rule.

marknutter 16y ago

But what is "socially desirable" is a completely subjective thing though. There could be a small group of Anons that think banning gays from entering the military is "socially desirable" and use that as a basis for taking down websites of companies who work with the military. It's Mastercard's choice whom they do business with, and by launching this attack Anon is only further solidifying the misguided popular belief that Wikileaks is akin to a terrorist organization. It may seem like a victory in the short term, but in terms of Wikileak's PR I think it's a huge setback.

borism 16y ago
It's Mastercard's choice whom they do business with No it's not.
- jlgosse 16y ago
  I'm really interested in this, and I'm confused as to why people are voting you up. You provided an answer with absolutely no evidence to support what you said and people find the answer either, a) Helpful or b) Interesting. Can you explain how it isn't their choice? Mastercard, VISA and American Express turn down applicants ALL the time, so doesn't this go against what you are saying here?
  - defen 16y ago
    I'm not sure what his point was, but technically it's true, at least in the U.S. There are a host of "protected classes", and if you refuse to do business with someone because they're in that protected class, you get in Big Trouble. This includes race, color, gender, age, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
    - marknutter 16y ago
      It's not true, otherwise signs that say "no shirt, no shoes, no service" would be illegal. You're referring to laws against discrimination based on race, sex, or disabilities. This says nothing about refusing service to people for other reasons, such as a rowdy bar patron or someone who violates Terms of Service.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        It's generally understood that refusing to do business with someone for political reasons, unless the person's politics involve genocide or something, is against the social contract. Not illegal, but generally not approved of by anyone (unless you have the whole US media playing the mccarthy card against the person, apparently).
        neilc 16y ago
        I think there are many people who, given the chance, would not do business with WikiLeaks (on the grounds that their actions are perceived to be against the US national interest and potentially putting lives in danger). So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this would be "generally understood ... to be against the social contract."
        jbooth 16y ago
        If you're a small business and people can take their money elsewhere, that's one thing, if you're one of two giant corporations providing a vital service, that's another.
loewenskind 16y ago
The only people who are going to blame this on Wikileaks are the people who are uninformed enough to already think they're a terrorist organization anyway. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about what such people think because unless you can get a spokesmen on Fox News you can't change their mind anyway.

corin_ 16y ago

It's not a dissimilar concept to strike action, in that it may well have a negative effect on customers, but is believed to be neccesary none-the-less. I fully support unions and strikers, however I'm not sure how I feel about this kind of action. The similarity ends with differences such as strikers have names, faces, spokespeople, they decide together if they are for or against striking, it isn't one or more people with nothing to do with the company who makes the decision.

varjag 16y ago
The difference might not be as huge, Round Robin was not invented for nothing. Just that the online world has more opportunity for anonymous sabotage.
noblethrasher 16y ago
Strike actions have symmetry and boundedness. Withholding labor obviously affects both the company and the workers and the action can only go so far since both sides need each other to survive. This kind of action is asymmetric and unbounded: Anon can hurt MasterCard without cost to himself (presumably) and he can theoretically carry it out for as long as he wants. This can only lead to some kind of escalation if MasterCard (and similar entities) want to survive.
- corin_ 16y ago
  Agreed. My comparison was purely in reply to the concept of "you shouldn't hurt a company to improve things, because it hurts their customers too."
  - ghostDancer 16y ago
    Well the you can compare it with commercial sanctions to Cuba, Irak or North Korea that the international community don't suffer too much (they're not big players) but the people of those countries do, not only their governments.
    - 16y ago

ebaysucks 16y ago

"Socially desirable" is the right way to think about it. Law has always been "mob rule", with competitive courts competing to define what this entails. "Legal" just means the government agrees with it. The state claimed a monopoly on "law" along the way. The tension we see today is that the "legal" does not represent the "socially desirable" / "law" anymore. Granted, a binary offline/online result using DDOS attacks is a very rude reputation system, but the reputation feedback processes can be improved upon by competition (semantic web startups anyone?).

kenjackson 16y ago
Law has always been "mob rule", with competitive courts competing to define what this entails. Exactly. In the US we have a system of checks in balances to pit competing mobs against each other in a way such that it is sufficiently difficult for a mob to rule over a large population. But if the mob gets sufficiently large, they can rule. And likewise, for small geographic regions we often do have mob rule.