Hacker News Reader

Comment by m_eiman | Hacker News Reader

A better way to show Mastercard that you don't like what they're doing would be to cancel your Mastercard and/or stop accepting MC payments.

View on HN

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is not a democratic response. The size of your wallet determines the size of your vote, which gives the millionaires and the multinationals all the votes.

This only works if enough people do it AND tell MC (and possibly the media) why they're doing it, though.

Yes, and that is how it is supposed to work. Boycotts and demonstrations not working, does not justify attacks.

The problem is this isn't how it happens. First, consider that no attack is really happening. It's merely digital, it harms no one physically. So this is merely economic harm (indeed, calling it an attack only elicits sympathy for the victim). Gandhi used an attack on the economy with his salt march. He broke laws.

Boycotts and demonstration raise awareness, but unless it reaches a critical mass, they don't work. Boycotts and demonstrations that disrupt (like marches through the street or strikes) are other forms of economic attacks that cause real monetary loss.

Voting with your wallet only works so far. Usually you're in the minority. Not because you're wrong. Even elections understand this: the results are based on those who voted, not those who could vote.

Review history, and time and time again you'll see economic attacks as parts of non-violent means.

I would beg to differ on the "no attack" part. Digital has real world implications and if someone is not able to buy a product because of this then it is an attack. It is like arguing that a protest on the sidewalk is equivalent to nailing the businesses front door shut. If you've ever had your credit card denied when trying to buy gas or food, you probably would understand what happens when someone does things like this in the modern world.

If boycotts and demonstrations don't reach critical mass, then they were not accepted by your peers. Be glad for this, many groups that are not generally accepted do marches that don't generate popular support.

> I would beg to differ on the "no attack" part. etc.

Same logic can be applied to Rosa Parks, who held up a bus full of people and delayed them from getting to wherever they were going, and also forced a police officer to deal with her rather than stay on patrol watching for real crime.

Of course, even in this case, it's dealing with the MC servers, which affects SecureCode. People aren't buying gas or food out and about with SecureCoded MCs.

I might be getting my history wrong, but Rosa Parks did not attack anyone. Once again, this is the difference between a demonstration on the sidewalk and boarding up someone's store.

Short memory span? You argued that Anon was attacking people causing physical harm (of which I was arguing against).

So, either you agree with me... or you disagree with me. Which is it? Are you suggesting Parks attacked people, or do you agree with me?

I at no point said it was "physical" , but I said it had real world implications. Rosa Parks was peaceful and in no way can be compared to these people doing the DDOS. I am rather offended by the comparison. I believe that a DDOS is an attack. I also believe your last post twists and does not address what I actually said, and I am disinclined from answering further. People can protest, boycott, and educate others, but the crossing of the line to attacks is mob madness and not to be celebrated.

It does harm people physically when, say, their sandwich purchase doesn't work and they become overly hungry -- physical stomach pains. And maybe a diabetic somewhere will end up in the hospital.

And what about the guy who was buying safety equipment and now he has to do the first day without it?

I can apply the same "what if" logic to Rosa Parks, who caused police to be sent to arrest her rather than patrolling their location and stopping a murder. Or someone on the bus that got delayed being late for a job interview, not getting it. Or that same diabetic not being able to get to his medicine he left at home.

Edit: I should also remind you that even if you want to accept your arguments, they aren't impacting actual transactions. Merely SecureCode transactions done online. So I highly doubt a diabetic in need of medicine now is going to order online.

Edit 2: And seriously, a guy get's a bit more hungry because he has to wait a tad longer because he can't order Fat Man's Pizza online because SC is down, and that's violent? Heck, then I guess Gandhi wasn't so peaceful after all, what with his salt march causing less money for people, and therefore, less money to buy food with, and therefore, less food to eat.

It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you.

But I didn't know it was online only. In that case it's hard to think of plausible ways it would do physical harm.

I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent". All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm, it's not harmless (contrary to the person who said it is harmless. not low on harm but literally harmless).

You should not be upset with people who make corrections without expressing any opinion. Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken.

> It's hard to think of a plausible way that Rosa Parks hurt anyone but it's very easy to think of plausible ways that having your credit card denied could hurt you.

No. I can't think of a way having my CC being denied online is going to physically hurt me. Maybe you can give an example.

Seriously though, your logic is flawed.

> I didn't say "violent" so don't complain about me calling stuff "violent".

Sorry, but what would you call an attack that causes physical harm? Peaceful?

You don't have to say the word violent, but you can still describe it.

> All I said is that economic harm can cause physical harm

And a butterflies wing could flap because of it can cause a hurricane causing the deaths of millions. Yes, everything is connected. I can create all sorts of crazy scenarios. Let's stick to reality.

Anon is doing a DDoS. Twisting that round and saying "Anon is attacking people causing physical harm" is dumb.

> Factual, literal-minded minor corrections are no threat to your side unless your side is mistaken.

I'm fine with factual, logical minded corrections. Your comment was void of that. You should remember context.

Until you can show anon attacking people causing physical harm, your actually not saying anything.

Why so hateful?

That's an intellectually dishonest argument. In my opinion the restriction of funding to Wikileaks is far more damaging.

i'm pretty sure it's the other way around: overlooking or complaining about the fact i pointed out, b/c one cares for a global conclusion, is intellectually dishonest. I didn't say a word about wiki leaks, I simply corrected the person who said that economic harm doesn't have any real life harmful consequences, which is false. I did not even try to say what that means; I just think we should use true premises whatever judgment we end up making.

Your probably is your being thickheaded. On purpose, or because that's who you are.

Yes, economic harm has real life consequences. Everything relates. Heck, you could make arguments that NOT DDoS could save someones life because someone couldn't pay for a gun they were going to use to kill someone with. You can go crazy with all sorts of stupid thought experiments. I mean, hell, let's go all out. Your posting of comments is killing living things, what with all the electricity needed to power the servers that connect your computer to this server. Your purchase of your computer keeps low-wage works in low-conditions.

But all that is stupid.

And that's not what I meant. And you know it. That's what makes you dishonest.

Why so hateful again? Why go to a different part of the thread, where I'm talking to someone else, to call me stupid, dishonest, thickheaded, and intentionally immoral?

Is it because you think I posted something wrong on the internet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com