Hacker News Reader

I would call it vigilantism which is a type of definitional terrorism. People in the US don't like that word, but there's a good many things that are terrorism that we don't call such. At the end of the day, violence with political aims is terrorism.

View on HN

> I would call it vigilantism which is a type of definitional terrorism.

Only if it's sufficiently political. Lots of DDoS is not. And that bar gets higher for an attack that's minimally violent.

There is no DDoS that's minimally violent. You are right though, not all DDoS attacks are politically motivated.

Whatever, can we say it's a 3/10 or less on the violence scale instead of having an argument about what "minimal" means?

For certain things I will measure/compare harmfulness relative to potential outcomes because sometimes doing enforcement is suboptimal. In this case, however, we're talking about someone co-opting the governments monopoly on violence, which is more of an issue of principle. Once you let people co-opt that, it's a fairly run-away train. That's a long way of saying, for me this situation is very binary. There's no degrees of vigilantism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com