5 ms·

> Is filing blatantly false reports (even police ones) in the hopes of deliberately crashing the website and also encouraging others to do so legal though? I d

> Is filing blatantly false reports (even police ones) in the hopes of deliberately crashing the website and also encouraging others to do so legal though? I don’t think you understand the concept of civil disobedience if your argument is “but that’s illegal!”.

rvz 5y ago
> civil disobedience 'Citation needed.' Do the TikTokkers have 'the right' to co-ordinate a joint effort to deliberately flood and take down someone's website? So you are saying it's fine for others to flood, DDoS and take down other websites they don't like, because they disagree with the content that is on there? The intention is obviously malicious and it is equivalent to similar web attacks such as this one which involved the authorities. [0] The fact that my questions haven't even been answered not only proves that no-one can defend it with a logical argument that justifies this act on someone's website, but it seems that some here are even defending script-kiddies now. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37439513 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37439513
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  A movement, or an ideology, doesn't need your approval nor does it need to convince you in particular, that it's methods are just. Is your argument that a website that encourages people to report violators of the anti-abortion law a net good for society? If that's your argument, I don't see why anyone should engage with you.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > A movement, or an ideology, doesn't need your approval nor does it need to convince you in particular, that it's methods are just. So trying to coordinate an effort into taking someones website down by filing multiple fake reports even through VPNs is legal isn't it? Majority of them are not even from Texas and are flooding the website to try to bring it down. If you are trying to defend script-kiddie behaviour on someones website that you disagree with, then maybe you think it is fine that this should also happen on anyone else's website that you don't like. How is that legal? > Is your argument that a website that encourages people to report violators of the anti-abortion law a net good for society? I didn't even make that argument and I already said I was against the website. [0] But feel free to create a straw-man argument. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      Sorry, yeah, I see that now. I retract that statement, but will leave it in place for completeness. Anyways… Whether a thing is legal or not isn’t a particularly strong argument for or against it. Hell yes people should be prepared to break laws in protest, and prepared to wear the consequences if they’re caught. It’s normal, it’s right, it’s just. We should be prepared to fight for what we believe is right. Absolutely.
      - rvz 5y ago
        > Absolutely Oh dear. So that means anyone can storm the capitol and call it 'a protest' because they were 'prepared to fight for what they believe is right.' Just like how many damaged federal buildings and other businesses in the process and call it 'a peaceful protest' because they too were also prepared to 'fight for what they believe is right.' as well. Even terrorists can claim this, just like how the awful events of Sept 2001 happened. Perhaps they were 'prepared to fight for what they believe was right.' as well. How is all of the above normal? How are any of these examples protests? Guess what? Not only all of the above are certainly not protests, they are all illegal and you're defending all of the above cases. I don't see how the events that happened in 9/11 can be called 'a protest' or even remotely 'just'.
        TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
        You’re wrong, I only support things I agree with, of course. But yeah, if you’re going to fight you better expect the repercussions.
        rvz 5y ago
        > You’re wrong, I only support things I agree with, of course. You DID just say Absolutely didn't you? Thus, no limitation or bounds was set for that argument. > But yeah, if you’re going to fight you better expect the repercussions. Well not only I don't agree with script-kiddies into trying to take someone's website down, I also don't agree with distributing such scripts and actively encouraging others to participate in a wide-scale effort into bringing it down. All because they don't like what's on there? Maybe it is fine to bring down a site I don't agree with then? To also add on what you said, there is no freedom of consequences when it comes to this so-called 'hacktivism'. These TikTokkers will be caught if the website owners decide to involve the authorities, on top of encouraging others who don't know any better to participate in this activity just for the kicks and now they probably made themselves all traceable to the website owners anyway. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386

rvz 5y ago

> civil disobedience 'Citation needed.' Do the TikTokkers have 'the right' to co-ordinate a joint effort to deliberately flood and take down someone's website? So you are saying it's fine for others to flood, DDoS and take down other websites they don't like, because they disagree with the content that is on there? The intention is obviously malicious and it is equivalent to similar web attacks such as this one which involved the authorities. [0] The fact that my questions haven't even been answered not only proves that no-one can defend it with a logical argument that justifies this act on someone's website, but it seems that some here are even defending script-kiddies now. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37439513 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37439513

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
A movement, or an ideology, doesn't need your approval nor does it need to convince you in particular, that it's methods are just. Is your argument that a website that encourages people to report violators of the anti-abortion law a net good for society? If that's your argument, I don't see why anyone should engage with you.
- rvz 5y ago
  > A movement, or an ideology, doesn't need your approval nor does it need to convince you in particular, that it's methods are just. So trying to coordinate an effort into taking someones website down by filing multiple fake reports even through VPNs is legal isn't it? Majority of them are not even from Texas and are flooding the website to try to bring it down. If you are trying to defend script-kiddie behaviour on someones website that you disagree with, then maybe you think it is fine that this should also happen on anyone else's website that you don't like. How is that legal? > Is your argument that a website that encourages people to report violators of the anti-abortion law a net good for society? I didn't even make that argument and I already said I was against the website. [0] But feel free to create a straw-man argument. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Sorry, yeah, I see that now. I retract that statement, but will leave it in place for completeness. Anyways… Whether a thing is legal or not isn’t a particularly strong argument for or against it. Hell yes people should be prepared to break laws in protest, and prepared to wear the consequences if they’re caught. It’s normal, it’s right, it’s just. We should be prepared to fight for what we believe is right. Absolutely.
    - rvz 5y ago
      > Absolutely Oh dear. So that means anyone can storm the capitol and call it 'a protest' because they were 'prepared to fight for what they believe is right.' Just like how many damaged federal buildings and other businesses in the process and call it 'a peaceful protest' because they too were also prepared to 'fight for what they believe is right.' as well. Even terrorists can claim this, just like how the awful events of Sept 2001 happened. Perhaps they were 'prepared to fight for what they believe was right.' as well. How is all of the above normal? How are any of these examples protests? Guess what? Not only all of the above are certainly not protests, they are all illegal and you're defending all of the above cases. I don't see how the events that happened in 9/11 can be called 'a protest' or even remotely 'just'.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
        You’re wrong, I only support things I agree with, of course. But yeah, if you’re going to fight you better expect the repercussions.
        rvz 5y ago
        > You’re wrong, I only support things I agree with, of course. You DID just say Absolutely didn't you? Thus, no limitation or bounds was set for that argument. > But yeah, if you’re going to fight you better expect the repercussions. Well not only I don't agree with script-kiddies into trying to take someone's website down, I also don't agree with distributing such scripts and actively encouraging others to participate in a wide-scale effort into bringing it down. All because they don't like what's on there? Maybe it is fine to bring down a site I don't agree with then? To also add on what you said, there is no freedom of consequences when it comes to this so-called 'hacktivism'. These TikTokkers will be caught if the website owners decide to involve the authorities, on top of encouraging others who don't know any better to participate in this activity just for the kicks and now they probably made themselves all traceable to the website owners anyway. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28400386