4 ms·

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

by 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.

by gwright 16y ago

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.