I'm of two thoughts on this. Obviously, sucks a lot to be dude, but no one is being violent (though some of the rhetoric veers toward threats, which is absolute

I'm of two thoughts on this. Obviously, sucks a lot to be dude, but no one is being violent (though some of the rhetoric veers toward threats, which is absolutely inappropriate), and this strategy puts immense pressure on Google. Additionally he's well-chosen as a target: quite wealthy, working on a product that's closely linked to military applications, and unluckily enough (for him) someone involved in the changing urban landscape of Berkeley, which helps protestors tap into a channel of great resentment. It's a tactic that's typically been used against CEOs in the past (e.g. after the Bhopal disaster): using it against someone lower on the totem poll makes me a bit uncomfortable, but it seems like a natural extension. The real WTF is this: what the hell are they hoping to accomplish? Everything in their manifesto is scattershot, and comes off as just a spray of resentment. I could maybe imagine a demand for Google to cease all contracts with the US military, but (1) they failed to make that demand the explicit focus and (2) they've not laid the groundwork for that demand. You don't jump into harsh escalations until you've built a community organized around the demand, but few people have heard of the Google car-military connection. The goal seems more just to express inchoate anger at Google and gentrification without having some specific outcome in mind. So, on strategy I give them an F. Tactics a B, mostly because the execution is flawed because of an absent strategy, leading to their manifesto reading as frothing rage than an intelligent indictment of him and Google. All the neighbors who receive this flier to are going to walk away sympathetic with the guy and respecting him more.