TikTokers flood Texas abortion whistleblower site
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
But I gotta say, I love GenZ!
The site is not for reporting women who get abortions.
But this is the new mentally ill generation. They need simplistic ideas they can simplistically solve. This is the new true evil.
If your IQ can handle it, here is what the site is doing and it talks about the law from their press release. https://www.texasrighttolife.com/help-enforce-the-texas-hear...
If there are any adults left you can find more factual information from both sides through Google. The new law is quite strange.
Texans have been supporting a little too much freedom during the pandemic, with public opinion being against CDC recommendations.
So the controlled opposition decided to pull a Trump.
Intentionally make themselves look like blowhard r3tards by starting this abortion fight.
Anyone wondering why now? It’s so the other fascists that want vaccine passports don’t look so crazy. Best way to make someone accept a shitty choice (Texans overwhelmingly don’t want vaxpass) is to offer them a worse choice. (absolutely no one wants this)
If the website owners used CloudFlare and ReCAPTCHA the critics will complain to Google and CloudFlare for 'supporting' the site and will demand them to terminate service to the owners of the website. Then this sort of malicious activity will happen.
If this malicious activity happened on their own websites or services (For example, The Guardian), they will complain about it as some black-hat activity or some foreign agents hacking (from a certain countries) and spamming them and will go far to report it to the authorities.
Only when you have no argument against anything you disagree with, one will try to do anything malicious to bring your website down for the kicks. Except if you are going to do that, be smart about it and use a different IP or VPN. These guys as emotional as they are about this issue probably didn't think about that.
Downvoters: They have just admitted to abusing the form on the website whilst also encouraging others to do so. You are saying that isn't encouraging malicious activity then? And no. I don't agree with the website either nor do I agree with attacking it with malicious intent with blatant spam and intentionally false reports.
So these TikTokers are not script-kiddies then? Because I think they clearly are. Perhaps you should think before you downvote next time, since they can be found out, exposed and caught like what happened here. [1]
But just to bite your bait, the mob is rightous! there should be no such thing as an abortion bounty and it is beyond political disagreement to create a site encouraging the harrassment (legal & otherwise) of women seeking abotions - it is a war on women and tiktok formstuffers should be the least of your worries!
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? You also haven't answered my question(s):
> You are saying that this isn't encouraging malicious activity then?
> So these TikTokers are not script-kiddies then?
There are other ways to combat this. But intentionally trying to taking down a site is exactly like malicious internet activity comparable with coordinated efforts such as [0], given they are encouraging others to do the same.
The website owners also have the option to trace them down, report it to the police and they will be dealt with by the authorities.
What the TikTokkers are doing isn't really a smart way of trying to change or protest about something one disagrees with. Just proves they don't have an argument.
I don’t think you understand the concept of civil disobedience if your argument is “but that’s illegal!”.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
But yeah, if you’re going to fight you better expect the repercussions.
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.