Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

So, the threat is that Weev is going to take public information and make it... public?

Basically, the threat unpacks to "I'm going to use the fact that I'm newsworthy to make already-public information more public by putting it in the news." To which I would suggest that our clickbait-driven, eyeball-obsessed media should find it ethical to decline to participate in such shenanigans. Though my phrasing should suggest what I consider the odds of that to be. They really shouldn't even have run this, and, well, they did, didn't they?

View on HN

No, I'm very aggressively marketing that information via phones, social media targeted ads, maybe fliers for small towns, etc.

It's different being a name on a list of millions of names and being aggressively singled out. The latter is effective, the former is not.

"It's different being a name on a list of millions of names and being aggressively singled out. The latter is effective, the former is not."

I'm actually aware of that, and carefully did not claim otherwise. I don't question the effectiveness of that part of the strategy.

(I do question the ethics, but, well, I'm sure that doesn't surprise anybody, including you. I say this mostly so I don't get a followup from someone conflating my belief in its effectiveness with my belief in its ethicalness. But, yes, I would expect this to be effective. It's also something that will get progressively less effective over time as more people do it, and I also think there is no chance that nobody else will do this, equally publicly. Privately I'm sure it's already been done, of course.)

It's public, but I myself have not gone through the records searching for people.

This dude is hella salty. If we wanted to make change he should try to change legislation.

He doesn't. Just wants the publicity and to hurt people he feels have "wronged" him.

Legislation has done a real shitty job ensuring liberty. Where did CFAA reform go? Did Aaron Swartz killing himself change anything? That was the best effort legislation was going to get, because Aaron was rich and well-connected and the bill had a bunch of lobbyists and PACs he worked with or were friends of his family pushing for it.

It went nowhere.

Legislation will not work. Only violence will.

But violence just makes it easier for the other side to vilify your side and completely disregard your original point.

The story becomes 'people who think x are violent terrorists' and all of a sudden no one wants to admit they think x, or even discuss x from a rational standpoint. Everyone will just remember the violence.

Sure, if you're the loser. Obviously such violent efforts need to destroy the current state and create a new one, or they're completely pointless.

Perhaps not, though. Bill Ayers still ended up in a position of powerful political influence and mainstream academic acceptance even after he and his associates in the Weather Underground committed a number of terrorist bombings. If your ideological clique ends up in a position of significant state influence, you'll be forgiven your crimes, even if the state is not replaced in its totality.

OK, free clue: You're the loser. So be careful about starting violence thinking that you're going to win and change everything.

In a bit more detail: You're the loser with 99% probability. The only way you're going to win is by having an amazing plan, or getting amazingly lucky, or most likely some of both.

That leaves two options: You lose and get crushed, or you don't make any change and it's irrelevant. For the rest of the world, it's better that you be in the second category, because you cause less damage that way.

And, in fact, I think you are in the second category. You're talking big about "destroy[ing] the current state and creat[ing] a new one", about how "only violence will [work]." And what's your violence? You're publicizing the Ashley Madison info of people who you're mad at. Pathetic.

But, in fact, I prefer pathetic big-talker do-nothings in this area, because they cause a smaller body count.

Now is the time for rhetoric. The future may perhaps become time for other strategies.

Concern Troll acts awfully concerned. News at 11.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com