• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 days ago

    “Imagine calling yourselves the ‘master race’ but forgetting to secure your own website — maybe try mastering to host WordPress before world domination,” Root wrote.

    Fucking gold.

  • FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    “They publicly delete all my websites while the audience rejoices. This is cyberterrorism,” the administrator wrote on X

    Lmao mald harder

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

      I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.

      • chaitae3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to influence a nation’s policy. This is not it.

        • Knightfox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

          At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            At some point the scales will not balance well and you need to be ok with that. There is no paradox of intolerance, for example, because tolerance is itself part of a social contract that bigots broke all on their own and once that’s out the window they do not get to reap the benefits of it. Social contracts aren’t easy math but they do make sense.

            This isn’t blowing up a furry website because someone thinks that’s weird. White supremacy is an incredibly dangerous ideology that has no place in whatever better society we claim to be aiming for. No one killed them for it, either. White supremacy built a website and a better person removed that website the same way one might paint over a swastika but leave the nice mural.

            • Knightfox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

              This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

              It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

              • Soup@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 days ago

                Look, I am aware of the dangers of vigilantism but I’m struggling to see why you’re so dead-set on this. There is basically no movement from those in power to actually curb these people and that’s where I start to care a whole lot less. Yes it’s still important to consider somewhere in there but hey, if the German government wasn’t doing anything about it then I guess that means they’ve passed on the opportunity.

                • Knightfox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  I’m not certain on much, but what I do know is that I believe in law. I like rules and I like order. Even more so I want rules and order to apply universally. You are arguing on the side of chaos against others with the privilege of law to protect you. That’s all well and good until those same standards are applied against you.

  • dellish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    [WhiteDate had] A gender ratio that makes the Smurf village look like a feminist utopia

    Lol. I like this Martha Root, I wish her many more happy hacking years.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Did they get it wrong? Like Grindr being suddenly popular wherever the Republicans have a convention, maybe the ratio is far better for partner-seekers than it looks on the surface.

      • qaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        I looked through the data and less than 1% was looking for a same-sex partner

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    Red Power Ranger: Red Power!

    Blue Power Ranger: Blue Power!

    White Power Ranger: Ahh no, fuck this shit… And who deleted my website?

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    In the early 90s, my grandfather assured me that he fought and killed nazis, so that my generation would never have to deal with them.

    He didn’t say he cancelled the nazis. The word he used was “Exterminated”.

    Maybe we should all do that again. Exterminate the nazis. Because quite frankly, this government is lousey with them.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Nazis weren’t exterminated, the US government hired quite a few (and that’s not counting the ones who went on vacation to Brazil in 1945)

      Maybe we should do it right this time.

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    The genius of launching an attack of this scale from an address space that is already jam-packed full of hackers, should not be understated. Id say that, if not for doing it live on stage, law enforcement now has a giant haystack of needles to sift through.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I will call it censorship, how we know who is nazi whiteout allowing them express themselves ? Let them speak so we can know !

    • _g_be@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      The irony of tolerating intolerant people to exist openly is that it actually erodes tolerance overall