3 ms·

I'm not saying they're exempt from backlash. I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because i

I'm not saying they're exempt from backlash. I'm saying that it's incredibly foolish to engage in such personal backlash (harassing somebody's wife), because it simply cannot help the situation at all. Anon is escalating, turning Sony into the victim and turning themselves into a secondary target. That's stupid on so many levels that it's hard to count. I'm all for things that could help geohot. But I'm not going to suggest doing things that can only hurt him and his credibility, help sony and their public image, whilst annoying innocent bystanders. That's just stupidity on a stick.

saturn 16y ago
Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them. I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition): exec: honey, i'm home! wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us? exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people wife: well are you? exec: well .. um, a bit wife: (glare)
- throwawayabcde 16y ago
  Thanks for confirming that you're living in a fantasy world.
evilduck 16y ago
I agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive home the point to someone hiding behind a corporate veil? Corporate execs can make all the destructive decisions they want and can almost universally avoid being held accountable. Circumventing that protection and making it personal is a pretty obvious choice, even if it's the wrong one. It also appears very poignant to me since Anon's actions basically mirror Sony's.

saturn 16y ago

Well, I disagree. I think that while in a grey area ethically it brings the question home in a very personal way; that's why they're doing it. Corporate execs are humans who have to come home to their wife and kids like anyone else. Perhaps there are some fanatical corporate warriors out there eager to put everything on the line to prove some kind of c-penis point but I sure haven't met them. I'm sure Anon envisage it going down like this (and IMO it is a reasonable supposition): exec: honey, i'm home! wife: oh darling, thank god you're home. those nasty men called me again! why are they doing this to us? exec: well, because they say we're violating free speech and harrassing innocent people wife: well are you? exec: well .. um, a bit wife: (glare)

throwawayabcde 16y ago
Thanks for confirming that you're living in a fantasy world.

evilduck 16y ago

I agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive home the point to someone hiding behind a corporate veil? Corporate execs can make all the destructive decisions they want and can almost universally avoid being held accountable. Circumventing that protection and making it personal is a pretty obvious choice, even if it's the wrong one. It also appears very poignant to me since Anon's actions basically mirror Sony's.