2 ms·

The failure started with the Texas Lege and then the Supreme Court. BTW you're misusing the terms "script-kiddies" and "hacktivists".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rvz 5y ago
The website in question is still up isn't it? Despite everything that has happened, that dreadful law is still in effect and no-one's minds had been changed. It is as if nothing had happened. > BTW you're misusing the terms "script-kiddies" and "hacktivists". How exactly? Elaborate. Your claim needs to be substantiated. If you cannot elaborate further with any evidence, I can rapidly dismiss your claim as baseless. I also invite anyone else to support the parent's comment against mine. Discuss.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Aside from the obvious problem that this is the company itself pulling it down and so no hacking is going on, Go Daddy is like the most mundane hosting company there is and you can't be anything as transgressive as a hacktivist there. Maybe you could get away with calling the responsible corporate drones in the legal department at Linode "hacktivists", but definitely not those at Go Daddy. The insistence that "script kiddie" is applicable is obviously some sort of 4d chess type of sarcasm trap and I won't engage in it further.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > Aside from the obvious problem that this is the company itself pulling it down and so no hacking is going on, Where did I directly accuse GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or describing them generally as 'hacktivists'? Given they are a private platform, they have the right to terminate service to anyone for violating their Terms of Service. As for the hacktivism and script-kiddie claims, the context is from [1] > The developer, whose social media identifies him as Sean Black, also made an iOS shortcut making it easier for non-technical activists to participate as well. > In the first video, Black says the script sends one request to the Texas website around every 10 to 15 seconds. In the second, Black adds that the script sent around 300 requests in all at the time of upload before the site blocked his IP address. Does that also mean its fine for me to do it to someones website because I don't like their website? So it's also fine to distribute malicious scripts and to encourage non-technical users to just hit the run button with the intention to DDoS and attempt to flood and bring down someones website because they don't like the website? If that is not script-kiddie behaviour, I don't know what is. > The insistence that "script kiddie" is applicable is obviously some sort of 4d chess type of sarcasm trap and I won't engage in it further. 4d chess type of what? Read the whole context [0] [1] [2] first before assuming such nonsense. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-abortion-law-tiktok-reddit-whistleblower https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-aborti... [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x9ba/tiktok-texas-abortion-law-bot-site-ios-shortcut https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x9ba/tiktok-texas-abortion... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-right-for-life-abortion-whistleblowing-site https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-rig...
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? If you'd had actually quoted from those links initially when making your comments about script kiddies and hactivists your statements would have made sense. But you didn't and instead of realising this you seems to prefer being outraged that nobody could read your mind to find the context you intended but never provided.
      - rvz 5y ago
        > Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? The whole context of this story is covered by multiple articles and all of them are completely relevant and happened BEFORE GoDaddy ultimately took action to de-platform the website. I assume you also read the Gizmodo article. If you did, you'll find that the article mentions and linked various methods used to directly attack the website which can be described as 'script-kiddie' and 'hacktivism' behaviour, before they themselves suggested their own effective method in getting GoDaddy to de-platform the website. To go further, I substantiated all of my claims with other relevant and reputable sources that gives more detail and covers the context of the whole story. Not just Gizmodo's ones. The whole story cannot be covered with only one source from one news site. So, had you 'actually' read the article rather than only just the title in the first place like many others in this thread, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with laughable nonsense like '4d chess type of sarcasm trap' and resorting to baseless suggestions that I directly accused GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or them being 'hacktivists' themselves.
        NelsonMinar 5y ago
        On second thought, apparently you do understand what the term "script-kiddies" means. The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". Looking forward to your 1500 word rebuttal with citations about the validity of strawman arguments.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > It is as if nothing had happened. Well, my resolve not to use GoDaddy for anything ever has been strengthened a bit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rvz 5y ago

The website in question is still up isn't it? Despite everything that has happened, that dreadful law is still in effect and no-one's minds had been changed. It is as if nothing had happened. > BTW you're misusing the terms "script-kiddies" and "hacktivists". How exactly? Elaborate. Your claim needs to be substantiated. If you cannot elaborate further with any evidence, I can rapidly dismiss your claim as baseless. I also invite anyone else to support the parent's comment against mine. Discuss.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Aside from the obvious problem that this is the company itself pulling it down and so no hacking is going on, Go Daddy is like the most mundane hosting company there is and you can't be anything as transgressive as a hacktivist there. Maybe you could get away with calling the responsible corporate drones in the legal department at Linode "hacktivists", but definitely not those at Go Daddy. The insistence that "script kiddie" is applicable is obviously some sort of 4d chess type of sarcasm trap and I won't engage in it further.
- rvz 5y ago
  > Aside from the obvious problem that this is the company itself pulling it down and so no hacking is going on, Where did I directly accuse GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or describing them generally as 'hacktivists'? Given they are a private platform, they have the right to terminate service to anyone for violating their Terms of Service. As for the hacktivism and script-kiddie claims, the context is from [1] > The developer, whose social media identifies him as Sean Black, also made an iOS shortcut making it easier for non-technical activists to participate as well. > In the first video, Black says the script sends one request to the Texas website around every 10 to 15 seconds. In the second, Black adds that the script sent around 300 requests in all at the time of upload before the site blocked his IP address. Does that also mean its fine for me to do it to someones website because I don't like their website? So it's also fine to distribute malicious scripts and to encourage non-technical users to just hit the run button with the intention to DDoS and attempt to flood and bring down someones website because they don't like the website? If that is not script-kiddie behaviour, I don't know what is. > The insistence that "script kiddie" is applicable is obviously some sort of 4d chess type of sarcasm trap and I won't engage in it further. 4d chess type of what? Read the whole context [0] [1] [2] first before assuming such nonsense. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-abortion-law-tiktok-reddit-whistleblower https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-aborti... [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x9ba/tiktok-texas-abortion-law-bot-site-ios-shortcut https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x9ba/tiktok-texas-abortion... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-right-for-life-abortion-whistleblowing-site https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/3/22656196/godaddy-texas-rig...
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? If you'd had actually quoted from those links initially when making your comments about script kiddies and hactivists your statements would have made sense. But you didn't and instead of realising this you seems to prefer being outraged that nobody could read your mind to find the context you intended but never provided.
    - rvz 5y ago
      > Are you are aware it's not actually context if you quote some completely different website you've never mentioned in the thread before? The whole context of this story is covered by multiple articles and all of them are completely relevant and happened BEFORE GoDaddy ultimately took action to de-platform the website. I assume you also read the Gizmodo article. If you did, you'll find that the article mentions and linked various methods used to directly attack the website which can be described as 'script-kiddie' and 'hacktivism' behaviour, before they themselves suggested their own effective method in getting GoDaddy to de-platform the website. To go further, I substantiated all of my claims with other relevant and reputable sources that gives more detail and covers the context of the whole story. Not just Gizmodo's ones. The whole story cannot be covered with only one source from one news site. So, had you 'actually' read the article rather than only just the title in the first place like many others in this thread, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with laughable nonsense like '4d chess type of sarcasm trap' and resorting to baseless suggestions that I directly accused GoDaddy Inc. of taking down the website as 'hacking' or them being 'hacktivists' themselves.
      - NelsonMinar 5y ago
        On second thought, apparently you do understand what the term "script-kiddies" means. The real problem in your original sentence "What have these 'script-kiddies' and 'hacktivists' achieved" is that you misused the word "these". Looking forward to your 1500 word rebuttal with citations about the validity of strawman arguments.
quotemstr 5y ago
> It is as if nothing had happened. Well, my resolve not to use GoDaddy for anything ever has been strengthened a bit.