Gentrification is a real problem, with inequality at it's roots. I think most people would agree with that. And I'd also agree that it's easy for some in the tech community to lose touch with the relative privilege that they often live in. But this is not a "reasonable backlash" – it's a bunch of incoherent knee-jerk harassment by people who should really be doing something better with their time.
The proper channel for dealing with housing issues is local government; for NSA issues, national government; in neither is the correct channel the harassment of individual employees of a company which may (or may not be) the cause of those issues.
He told me something his grandfather taught him: People who are protesting against you will almost certainly disagree with you about what an "acceptable backlash" is. Specifically you will prefer ineffective protests and those that that don't inconvenience you, while they will prefer effective protests and those that are spiteful.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/22/264528139/long-a-dirty-word-ge...
I read the flyer, too. Kind of a PITA to rotate it, but:
It's just their perspective, mostly PR-style publicl-available history of projects for that particular developr. It's worthwhile to read, to remind ourselves to be respectful of the larger scene, rather than just the dollar signs.
Still, it's hyperbolic in places. I think their view would be more persuasive if they talked about "the kind of world we want to live in" rather than leaping to "evil." It would also be more persuasive if they discussed more ways everyday people can avoid giving power to their "opponents." Mom and Pop are much more likely to starve Google by switching to DuckDuckGo than to "take down surveillance cameras."
However, I don't think it's utter crap. Both sides in this issue have some large, philosophical questions to consider.