9 ms·

Internet? Grassroots? The Internet hasn't taken down anything. A small group of geeks have taken upon themselves to take down a few targeted websites. No due

by gwright 16y ago

Internet? Grassroots? The Internet hasn't taken down anything. A small group of geeks have taken upon themselves to take down a few targeted websites. No due process, no rule book, no accountability, just naked use of force. If I'm following correctly, I'm supposed to believe that a staff member of an elected official asking about the activities of a private company is an abuse of power but a small group of unelected geeks representing no one but themselves are to be commended for actively disrupting the activities of a private business.

michaelchisari 16y ago
I'm not aware of previous grassroots movements being democratically elected. Nobody elected the suffragists, for instance. That's not really how movements work.
- gwright 16y ago
  OK. But I didn't intend to conflate my questioning of the use of 'grassroots' with my point about accountability. I think the term 'grassroots' suggests a much more widespread and visible 'movement' than the tiny number of Anonymous members taking part in the DDOS attacks.
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    Usually a movement is 99% supporters of the cause and 1% activists. You don't think radical actions for transparency is a widely supported movement or widely known? I think WikiLeaks may hurt some supporters, but I think amongst those sympathetic to the cause - it can only help them increase in numbers, awareness and influence. Hats off to them.
    - gwright 16y ago
      Are we talking about Wikileaks' disclosures or are we talking about the DDOS attacks? There is certainly an argument to be made for government transparency but I fail to see how MasterCard, Visa, and Paypal, and so on are the organizations that should be pressured in order to bring about improved government transparency. And no, I don't think that 'radical actions for transparency' is a widely supported movement and regardless of our disagreement on the term 'widely' I don't think DDOS activities are effective, appropriate, or justified in the furtherance of better government transparency.
      - nickpinkston 16y ago
        I wasn't talking about orgs - but the ethos at the intersection of transparency, internet culture, etc. - which I think must be admitted to have quite an overlap. I'm using widely to mean between 5% to even 20% of people - perhaps if you briefly talked with them about it. It's not a subject like religion where people are hard fast - I've already talked to many in their 60's who think WikiLeaks is overall doing good things and likes to see "the man" take a hit. Unless you're right-winger who already overuses "treason" in your political discourse - I think there's room for debate on this issue with WikiLeaks gaining some legitimacy.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Small note; Wikileaks is not anonymous. The DDOS-en have nothing to do with Wikileaks, the organization.
makmanalp 16y ago
I'm hesitant to liken Anonymous to revolutionaries but to be honest, almost all revolutions were started in a "small group" that was relatively insignificant (that was unelected), and then grew in size and gathered acceptance. Again with the due process and rules: do you think when the French people stormed the Bastille during the French Revolution, there was any semblance of rules or accountability? Hell no. It was the "naked use of force". Did it have bad consequences? Some. Did it have good consequences? I think you know the answer.
- gwright 16y ago
  You've stripped away all the particulars in order to equate the overthrow of a multi-century monarchy with disruption of a few websites. Yes, we've got two examples of 'disputes'. But that doesn't get us very far. Can you finish the analogy for me? You are suggesting that the DDOS activities are indicative of an attempt to overthrow what in favor of what?
  - makmanalp 16y ago
    My point was that the properties of this small scale protest (or tantrum depending on however you look at it) that you deride are actually pretty similar to most other protests.
    - gwright 16y ago
      You suggested that it was similar to the French Revolution. In what way is it similar other than they both involved 'protest'? And if that is the similarity you were trying to make, then why confuse the issue by bringing in the concept of revolutionary war? Is there a French Revolution version of Godwin's Law?
      - kj12345 16y ago
        This is the third time in a short period I've seen Godwin's Law used as a way to discount serious discussion online. Are we really so uncomfortable with the concept of metaphor or the importance of remembering and analyzing serious events? We're discussing censorship, freedom, etc and 20th-century history is off limits?
netcan 16y ago
This is how lots of protests work, and they get the same criticism. If one hundred thousand people decide to stop traffic in new york or disrupt the air port in London these are a tiny fraction of citizens (they don't have to be citizens), unelected with no rules. They all might have different ideas about why they are there and it may be impossible for anyone to lead them to stop. There may be some inherently bad things about mobs, but there is nothing inherently good about them. You could have hundreds of thousands take to the street in support of fascism just as easily as freedom of information. Worrisome as they are though, chaotic mass protests seem to be an important part of the democratic process.
- gwright 16y ago
  There is a difference between "peaceful assembly" and targeted disruption of private businesses. You can't just slap the word 'protest' on any activity in order to justify it.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    There is a difference, but not all protest is peaceful assembly. Some of it is disruption of private business. The Boston Tea Party, for instance, was hardly a peaceful assembly.
    - Retric 16y ago
      The Boston Tea Party was also an attack on private property not just the government.
jacquesm 16y ago
> No due process There is some poetic justice in the symbols of American finance the world over being taken down without 'due process' after America has done lots of things without 'due process' the world over. That said I feel sorry for those that depend on VISA/Mastercard for a living. For every person that has been killed in Illegal wars, been subjected to torture, extradited without so much as a hearing or simply snatched off the street in Europe or other places in the world 'due process' would have mattered a lot, and that's people we're talking about, whose lives were utterly ruined at the call of a 'small group of politicians' not websites.
drivebyacct2 16y ago
That is how protests work. A small group of elected aristocrats single handedly took sites off of the Internet because they didn't like it, even though the content was not illegal and was protected under the First Amendent. "just naked use of force". The difference is, were supposed to be holding the government accountable. I have no problems. I'd love to see this hurt Visa and Mastercard. Get them and Paypal and Amazon to grow a pair and tell the government that WL isn't doing anything illegal. Is it classy? Is it in the best interest of proper discourse? No. But come on, we're past that point.
zcid 16y ago
A small group of geeks have taken it upon themselves to defend a website through the only means they have. Assange is rapidly becoming a persona non grata in most of the first world countries because he challenges their authority and methods. Wikileaks is being strangled by a DoS on its resources both human and material. We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying. Yes, you can contact your congressman, but honestly, is that really going to do any good? You can speak out and hold protests, but the media will only continue to marginalize your cause or worse, ignore you entirely. The methods being employed for these DoS attacks are obviously not legal, but what other recourse is there? And as for them being unelected, I will put my voice behind them right now. The people I actually took the time to elect don't give a shit. There is what is legal and what is right. I will always fight for what is right; legality be damned.
- sigzero 16y ago
  "We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying." It is never right to do wrong for a chance to do right. The ends do not justify the means in this case. Your argument is fallacious in that you can apply that reasoning to everything in life.
msy 16y ago
No due process, no rule book, no accountability, just naked use of force. That's a neat description of the actions taken against wikileaks. The USG and its allies have declared war on wikileaks using means both fair and foul, the friends of wikileaks are simply fighting fire with fire.

by gwright 16y ago

michaelchisari 16y ago

I'm not aware of previous grassroots movements being democratically elected. Nobody elected the suffragists, for instance. That's not really how movements work.

gwright 16y ago
OK. But I didn't intend to conflate my questioning of the use of 'grassroots' with my point about accountability. I think the term 'grassroots' suggests a much more widespread and visible 'movement' than the tiny number of Anonymous members taking part in the DDOS attacks.
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  Usually a movement is 99% supporters of the cause and 1% activists. You don't think radical actions for transparency is a widely supported movement or widely known? I think WikiLeaks may hurt some supporters, but I think amongst those sympathetic to the cause - it can only help them increase in numbers, awareness and influence. Hats off to them.
  - gwright 16y ago
    Are we talking about Wikileaks' disclosures or are we talking about the DDOS attacks? There is certainly an argument to be made for government transparency but I fail to see how MasterCard, Visa, and Paypal, and so on are the organizations that should be pressured in order to bring about improved government transparency. And no, I don't think that 'radical actions for transparency' is a widely supported movement and regardless of our disagreement on the term 'widely' I don't think DDOS activities are effective, appropriate, or justified in the furtherance of better government transparency.
    - nickpinkston 16y ago
      I wasn't talking about orgs - but the ethos at the intersection of transparency, internet culture, etc. - which I think must be admitted to have quite an overlap. I'm using widely to mean between 5% to even 20% of people - perhaps if you briefly talked with them about it. It's not a subject like religion where people are hard fast - I've already talked to many in their 60's who think WikiLeaks is overall doing good things and likes to see "the man" take a hit. Unless you're right-winger who already overuses "treason" in your political discourse - I think there's room for debate on this issue with WikiLeaks gaining some legitimacy.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Small note; Wikileaks is not anonymous. The DDOS-en have nothing to do with Wikileaks, the organization.

makmanalp 16y ago

I'm hesitant to liken Anonymous to revolutionaries but to be honest, almost all revolutions were started in a "small group" that was relatively insignificant (that was unelected), and then grew in size and gathered acceptance. Again with the due process and rules: do you think when the French people stormed the Bastille during the French Revolution, there was any semblance of rules or accountability? Hell no. It was the "naked use of force". Did it have bad consequences? Some. Did it have good consequences? I think you know the answer.

gwright 16y ago
You've stripped away all the particulars in order to equate the overthrow of a multi-century monarchy with disruption of a few websites. Yes, we've got two examples of 'disputes'. But that doesn't get us very far. Can you finish the analogy for me? You are suggesting that the DDOS activities are indicative of an attempt to overthrow what in favor of what?
- makmanalp 16y ago
  My point was that the properties of this small scale protest (or tantrum depending on however you look at it) that you deride are actually pretty similar to most other protests.
  - gwright 16y ago
    You suggested that it was similar to the French Revolution. In what way is it similar other than they both involved 'protest'? And if that is the similarity you were trying to make, then why confuse the issue by bringing in the concept of revolutionary war? Is there a French Revolution version of Godwin's Law?
    - kj12345 16y ago
      This is the third time in a short period I've seen Godwin's Law used as a way to discount serious discussion online. Are we really so uncomfortable with the concept of metaphor or the importance of remembering and analyzing serious events? We're discussing censorship, freedom, etc and 20th-century history is off limits?

netcan 16y ago

This is how lots of protests work, and they get the same criticism. If one hundred thousand people decide to stop traffic in new york or disrupt the air port in London these are a tiny fraction of citizens (they don't have to be citizens), unelected with no rules. They all might have different ideas about why they are there and it may be impossible for anyone to lead them to stop. There may be some inherently bad things about mobs, but there is nothing inherently good about them. You could have hundreds of thousands take to the street in support of fascism just as easily as freedom of information. Worrisome as they are though, chaotic mass protests seem to be an important part of the democratic process.

gwright 16y ago
There is a difference between "peaceful assembly" and targeted disruption of private businesses. You can't just slap the word 'protest' on any activity in order to justify it.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  There is a difference, but not all protest is peaceful assembly. Some of it is disruption of private business. The Boston Tea Party, for instance, was hardly a peaceful assembly.
  - Retric 16y ago
    The Boston Tea Party was also an attack on private property not just the government.

jacquesm 16y ago

> No due process There is some poetic justice in the symbols of American finance the world over being taken down without 'due process' after America has done lots of things without 'due process' the world over. That said I feel sorry for those that depend on VISA/Mastercard for a living. For every person that has been killed in Illegal wars, been subjected to torture, extradited without so much as a hearing or simply snatched off the street in Europe or other places in the world 'due process' would have mattered a lot, and that's people we're talking about, whose lives were utterly ruined at the call of a 'small group of politicians' not websites.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

That is how protests work. A small group of elected aristocrats single handedly took sites off of the Internet because they didn't like it, even though the content was not illegal and was protected under the First Amendent. "just naked use of force". The difference is, were supposed to be holding the government accountable. I have no problems. I'd love to see this hurt Visa and Mastercard. Get them and Paypal and Amazon to grow a pair and tell the government that WL isn't doing anything illegal. Is it classy? Is it in the best interest of proper discourse? No. But come on, we're past that point.

zcid 16y ago

A small group of geeks have taken it upon themselves to defend a website through the only means they have. Assange is rapidly becoming a persona non grata in most of the first world countries because he challenges their authority and methods. Wikileaks is being strangled by a DoS on its resources both human and material. We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying. Yes, you can contact your congressman, but honestly, is that really going to do any good? You can speak out and hold protests, but the media will only continue to marginalize your cause or worse, ignore you entirely. The methods being employed for these DoS attacks are obviously not legal, but what other recourse is there? And as for them being unelected, I will put my voice behind them right now. The people I actually took the time to elect don't give a shit. There is what is legal and what is right. I will always fight for what is right; legality be damned.

sigzero 16y ago
"We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying." It is never right to do wrong for a chance to do right. The ends do not justify the means in this case. Your argument is fallacious in that you can apply that reasoning to everything in life.

msy 16y ago

No due process, no rule book, no accountability, just naked use of force. That's a neat description of the actions taken against wikileaks. The USG and its allies have declared war on wikileaks using means both fair and foul, the friends of wikileaks are simply fighting fire with fire.