Stolen Patreon User Data Dumped On Internet 161
After the personal data breach at crowd-funding site Patreon reported a few days ago, there's some worse news: the information isn't just in limbo any more; Patreon reported Saturday that the compromised information has been leaked in the form of a massive data dump. (The slightly good news is that no credit card information was leaked.)
data dump link (Score:5, Informative)
https://patreon.thecthulhu.com/ [thecthulhu.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So there is a list of names and addresses on the Internet.
There is also a list of names and addresses in the phone book.
I don't really see the difference.
Who is harmed by this?
Re: (Score:2)
They only store the last 4 of ssns
Re: (Score:3)
Do you donate to 'Dog Rescue Cyprus', or 'Penelopies Pantyhose' ?
(I note the latter is a wecomic, not actual goods.)
There are some very, very questionable and for some life-damaging things you could support.
In addition, private messages asking for specific content to be created could be obviously damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
If you donate to anything that gamergate doesn't like, hold on tight, because you're in for a bumpy ride.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to what the AC posted, why would you say that about the Gamergaters, after all, they care about ethics in game journalism, it is the anti-GG side that wants to be everyone's thought police so they can determine what is right and wrong and how you should think.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to what the AC posted, why would you say that about the Gamergaters, after all, they care about ethics in game journalism, it is the anti-GG side that wants to be everyone's thought police so they can determine what is right and wrong and how you should think.
As an outsider (outside both sides of this shitstorm, I might add, but I'm going to concentrate on one side here because you already know the arguments on the other side), I find it hard to tell the difference between Gamergaters, their fanboys, and everyone else (e.g. MRAs) who claim some adherence to the hashtag. So while it may well be true that Gamergaters (appropriately defined) don't engage in trolling, harassment, doxing, and so on, the hashtag attracts a lot of people who do, and they seem to attrac
Re: (Score:2)
The Horror (Score:3)
Woah, woah, hold up a sec. Are you saying that Stephen King is married to Michelle Bachmann? His stories make so much sense, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Stephen King is married to Michelle Bachmann?
Not married in the traditional Western sense. It's more of a matrilineal clanship union.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The SQL file in the dump contains all the private messages sent on the site. It's likely that many Patreon users will be embarrassed by the nature of those messages, e.g. they are getting paid by unsavoury individuals, being encouraged to harass and abuse other people for money, or speaking candidly about their motivations (e.g. bigotry) while trying to maintain a respectable public face.
There is also information on who is funding whom, so a lot of people who might have wished to remain anonymous will now b
Which Side Fought Against Disclosure, Again? (Score:4, Informative)
Gamergate exposed many undisclosed financial relationships between the gaming journalists and article subjects, forcing their employers to reform their ethics policies and add appropriate disclosures.
A significant chunk of those relationships were through Patreon, and at least one of the resulting ethics policy updates made direct reference to Patreon. Also note that many gaming journalists "responded" to Gamergate's successful push for greater ethics scrutiny by . . . hiding their Patreon donations by making them private.
I doubt the hack is good for either side of the "culture war", but anti-GG has a history of trying to hide where the money is coming from (and going to).
Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.
Sure do [slashdot.org]. How the reaction was widely reported in the mainstream tech news media is a completely different matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
Do you have a citation of this? Show your workings. What are you defining as harassment? Who specifically is being doxxed and by whom? How are you calculating that "most of it" is "by gamergate fanboys". You mentioned Felicia Day, but what evidence do you have that she was doxxed and that it was a "gamergate fanboy"? Was this information publicly available information that was just copy\pasted from a public source? Is that really doxxing? Or was this private information known only to a few? If so, who disco
Re: (Score:2)
As I explained in that last sentence (which you may have missed), I am trying to communicate the fact that as an outsider (to both sides), I can't tell who is "in" Gamergate and who is "out". The only piece of information I have is who uses the hashtag, and literally anyone can use that. Even among the high-profile people who are commonly associated with the movement, it's often hard to tell if they're in or out (e.g. Aurini).
The reason why "Ga
Evidence of Harassment (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
You sound confident in that claim, so you must have evidence of it. Do post some, because (as I said elsewhere in the thread [slashdot.org]) it's become routine for anti-Gamergate folks to portray exposure of corruption and mere disagreement with their opinions as "harrassment," and we know pro-GG folks get doxxed too (not sure about the ratio of pro-GG to anti-GG doxxing victims, and there's definitely no way to know the perpetrator ratio . . . though some do openly support doxxing, like Quinn and Harper and R Watson and Gawker's CEO, etc.). Here's an example of what I'm looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] [youtube.com]
.)
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Go ahead, post something half as damning (and conclusive) as that pathetic Sarkeesian "fanboy."
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
Wow, look at you, admitting up front you can't fulfill c) above. Tell me, why is the tech news sites' reporting of Gamergate "harassment" always so disconnected (in fact, usually the opposite) of what is indicated by the evidence? Must be lots of folks just like you working the field . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this thread, I have consistently used phrases like "Gamergate fanboy" because, as an outsider to both sides of this fiasco, I can't tell who is "in" and who is "out", and it seems to change by the month. (A few MRAs were "in" for a while, and now they're "out", for example.)
It's a similar problem for the other side, BTW. Apart from some of the standard GG targets, it's sometimes hard to tell who is a legitimate cultural critic, who is a feminist looking in from the outside, who is an innocent party caugh
Re: (Score:1)
Patreon has very liberal standards for the types of content they want to be funded. Everything from normal pornography to animated pony porn is on there. Now you've got a phone book that also lists the weird shit that an individual is into
Re: (Score:2)
Does the phone book include sexual preferences?
https://www.patreon.com/animop... [patreon.com]
Post your name and address. (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick experiment to demonstrate that you have not thought about this ... post your name and address here. Right now.
If you do not, then your question really was stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
So does this mean I can stalk Nataly Dawn?
--
BMO
Sucks lemons... (Score:3)
Expect drama (Score:3, Interesting)
This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign.
^^^^^THIS.
Yes, beware the wrath of the self-righteous Social Justice Warriors. To them the ends do justify the means, and simply disagreeing with them puts you on their enemies list.
Re:Expect drama (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian.
What Thunderf00t "spouted" about Anita Sarkeesian was anything but "bullshit". I checked a lot of the stuff in his videos on Anita Sarkeesian and the fact is that pretty much everything he said checked out. And it's easy to see it why it checks out because all he did was take clips of her speaking and played them verbatim.
You can do the same and you'll likely come to the same conclusion if you aren't already committed to a particular point of view.
Remember, Anita Sarkeesian is the one who said "EVERYTHING is sexist, EVERYTHING is racist, EVERYTHING is homophobic, and you have to point it all out." That statement of hers is simply not true by ANY stretch of the imagination. Seriously, give me a fuckin' break. Everything is NOT sexist, racist, and homophobic and only a demagogue would say shit like that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thunderf00t, the guy who starts his videos not with a reasoned argument or a conclusion to which he intends to build towards, but with some memes and ad-hominem attacks. The bloke who manages to take 0.1% of her videos out of context and build a profitably industry around it. That guy?
https://youtu.be/8N-tkrxAEWw [youtu.be]
By the way, she never said what you claim she did. If I'm wrong you will provide a reliable source, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, she never said what you claim she did. If I'm wrong you will provide a reliable source, I'm sure.
This enough for ya? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thunderf00t would be proud. Taken out of context and edited down to just those words. She clearly never intended the meaning you imply, and actually if you watch the whole debate she was saying the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Her point was that to be a feminist you don't have to take that view. It's just straw feminist argument that gives people the wrong impression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My interpretation of her comments is that she does believe that there there are a lot of things she now perceives as sexist that she otherwise would not have, and that while when she first came to feel this way, she felt the need to constantly point that out, she now believes its bett
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I really can't see how any reasonable listener could conclude that she things everything is sexist and racist from what she said. Clearly, she does not think everything in the entire world, every argument, every thought is sexist and racist.
The people posting the edited clip are trying to make out that she automatically assumes everything is sexist and racist without cause or thought. That is clearly not the case.
Also, merely labelling a philosophy or point of view as a region does not make i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Literally 2 seconds to find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Hey, don't disrupt his narrative by getting all "facty" and stuff. SJWs hate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Any context? The way she's grinning suggests that the meaning is a little more nuanced than a 5-second clip can tell us.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, she never said what you claim she did. If I'm wrong you will provide a reliable source, I'm sure.
The video clearly shows her saying exactly that, in those exact words.
We both know it does, but you're welcome to deny it until you wet your panties in frustration.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it shows an edited clip of her saying that people shouldn't be like that. Someone edited out the important but to make it look like she was saying that is her view point.
It's been dubunked. Just let it go.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how this comment is older than yours I am replying to:
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
And shows her saying exactly the quoted phrase, along with the context where she is saying exactly what the shortened quote says. She is saying she sees everything as sexist, racist, and homophobic, and had to tone it down to be accepted by people.
Now, please, find those goal posts and most them some more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do people get so upset at sarkeesian for making videos about ms pax man and princess toadstool? Who cares? She's not peeing on a statue of Mohammed. Tbh I enjoyed the videos, it was neat the way she traced certain themes over 4 decades of gaming. Why the knee jerk reaction to attack her?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
she undoubtedly cherry picks her examples. She develops a thesis based on her analysis of the industry, then makes a video about her thesis and chooses examples to illustrate it. This is what any biographer or historian or literary critic does. Ever seen PBS?
The big question is, so what? Nobody goes nuclear when Roger Ebert releases a review. Why is it such a big deal?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sarkeesian on the other hand responded by playing the victim, demonizing her critics, and using the media to write
ahh, here we go. Responded to what? Responded to violent threats and doxxing. If GG and MRAs hadn't flipped out, she would have been the star adjunct professor in a women's studies department at Oberlyn.
The people who first attacked sarkeesian were nothing but a bunch of butthurt mysoginists that felt threatened by a woman saying things that hurt their self image.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking about this more... There's a subtext that shines through all of the FemFreq videos: a love of gaming. Who else but a total gaming nerd could talk for 15 mins about the differences between the pac-man and ms. Pac-man sprites?
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, just to head off this objection: GGers managed to dig up a video of Anita Sarkeesian saying that she didn't like modern warfare-type shooters, and somehow spun this into an "admission" that she wasn't really a gamer.
FWIW, I don't like the endless parade of Battlecall: Field of Duty clones either.
Re: (Score:1)
She went to the UN (well, UN Women) to ask for more censorship on the Internet.
I just watched what she said. In fact, I watched the whole session at which she and Zoe Quinn spoke. Thank you very bloody much for making me sit through that.
This should come as no surprise to anyone, but she did not even come close to "ask[ing] for more censorship on the Internet". Actually her statement was extremely broad. Zoe Quinn came slightly closer, but mostly she talked about things like the importance of anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
No the statement is correct. Like beauty, racism, sexism, and homophobia are in the eyes or ears as it may be of the interpreter. Which is why its mostly pointless to worry about it. Unless someone is plainly deliberately attempting to be provocative by making statements that will widely be read as racist, sexist, or homophobic; we should just give them the benefit of the doubt as a society and move on.
People like Anita Sarkeesian may be factually correct but they contribute nothing new or useful essenti
Re: (Score:2)
Anita Sarkeesian may be factually correct but they contribute nothing new or useful essentially 'society' has know and understood her point since the third century BC. Its just useless gum flapping now.
She's not factually correct, or any other kind of "correct" for that matter. She's simply drumming up dollars by casting herself (and all women by extension) as helpless downtrodden victims of Teh Patriarchy. Her "analysis" of video games is buzzword-laden bullshit with no basis in reality.
She said herself early on that she "wasn't a gamer" and "didn't play video games", and it's been proven that she stole about 95% of the gaming footage used in her videos (without giving attribution, of course). But Anita
Re: (Score:2)
Or just watch TV for a little while. Pay attention to how the men are portrayed in many commercials. There are quite a few commercials out recently that portray the man as an idiot who just "doesn't get it" and has to have the woman show him the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Why do you care so much if someone's doing something you don't like on the internet? Do you begrudge them making money off of fools, for thinking differently than you, or what? It looks to me (and you're probably aware of my perspective) that you're just wanting to take someone's income away because you don't like what they have to say. I seem to recall you mentioning campaigning for this in the last thread on this Patreon matter. To what end do you want to curtail speech and strip people of their incom
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... Are you illiterate, drunk, or just not bright? If you can comprehend what you read then re-read my post. I'm the one clearly suggesting not interfering with speech. Or, rather, I'm the one who is curious about why one would actually want to restrict someone's funding and, in doing so, limit their speech. See, I'm the one who's a fan of letting idiots say what they want, even if I think they're morons, and letting people spend their money however they want without trying to busy myself with harming ot
Re: (Score:2)
Who called for her speech to be curtailed? We are all just pointing out how much of a troll she is, which is free speech as well.
No one is calling for her to be silenced, they are pointing out the faults in her logic, using their free speech rights.
Re: (Score:2)
They are actively trying to get them defunded and that would limit their ability to speak. I don't care for what they say but, damn, I can't imagine the mental thought process that would make me decide to try to get someone defunded just because they're full of shit and taking money from a bunch of other idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
In hindsight, you may have missed the initial topic from whence this came... Allow me to quote...
This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.
You can also see the former topic concerning this where they're actively cheering for this as well. (I'm guessing they might be participating but they seem more like a cheerer and not a doer so I may be mistaken.)
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize, didn't realize you were arguing with AmiMoJo. Yes, he is looking to curtail speech he doesn't like, because it disagrees with his demigods.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no problem. I've seen your prior posts (and you seem intelligent enough) so I figured you must have missed something so I went on a quest to figure out what it might have been. I really don't understand the thinking process where you want to shout down, shut down, or harm another because you don't like what they have to say. I've tried to understand but I just can't seem to get my head around it. I keep asking because I'm hoping someone will actually explain the thought process that goes on or because
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Never heard of "Anita Sarkeesian" so to save some googling for other folks who hadn't heard of her either, here's a summary: Somewhat attractive face and body looks pretty hot. Guessing tits only 34C or so. However, the other girl that popped up in Google images (Zoe Quinn?) is definitely hotter, face isn't great but there are a few full-body pics and it looks like she has really nice tits (36D?) and scrumptious ass.
Overall, the first girl is around a 6/10 and the second one tops her scoring a respectabl
Re:Expect drama (Score:4, Insightful)
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers. Does that mean they are SJWs? That term seems rather ill defined.
SJW just means anyone who cares about anything that the person using the term SJW thinks is stupid, or bad, or wrong. If you have the gall to care, even though they are apathetic fuckheads, then you're a SJW. They have to deprecate you because they know they're shitbags and you're making them feel like what they are. And they will happily lump people with sensible ideas in with assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh. A Social Justice Warrior is someone who fights for social justice. It's really not that complicated.
The people using SJW as a pejorative are not, as far as I can tell, against social justice. They just a) have a different idea of what it is and b) relentlessly mock and troll anyone with whom they disagree. They seem to be mostly the same crowd that called any attempt to move society forward "politically correct" in the last decade. Now instead of PC it's SJW. A little catchier, but it's hard to make traction with society when one names one's enemies Social Justice Warrior. It implies that one is fighting
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree with you personally.
But you don't even have the courage to associate your idea with an identity. Shock amazement.
The problem with the term "SJW" is that it's applied left and right without consideration for whether it's "deserved", to the point that it has no meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the AC gave a pretty good definition, I have seen many of these types called SJW, so how about disputing what he says, not who he is which doesn't matter to the argument?
Re: (Score:2)
I personally define a SJW to be akin to a witch hunter.
Yup, yet another personal definition of "SJW" which doesn't match the original intended definition [urbandictionary.com]. The term "SJW" is responsible for more muddle-headed thinking than anything else I've seen lately.
"Focal Point" Rhetoric == Guilt By Association (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian. The first video made him a fair chunk of cash, so he kept doing them. If the profit motive is taken away he will likely lose interest.
Your premise is faulty. He's made videos refuting creationists and promoting science for years, even though he "made little" money from them. The more likely explanation is that anti-progressivism videos were just a natural extension of his previous pro-skeptic content, especially after he saw "progressive" feminists try to infect atheism through Atheism+.
It's important because while he only does a bit of mild harassment, his videos and his cause act as a focal point for other idiots who do much worse.
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers.
Oh, this is fucking priceless. Got any evidence for that assertion? Here, I'll start (using a different "focal point"):
.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Re:"Focal Point" Rhetoric == Guilt By Association (Score:4, Insightful)
Go to Thunderf00t's YouTube channel and look at the view counters on his videos. The anti-feminist ones are by far the most popular. Every time he makes one he gets a big pay day from YouTube and new Patreon subscribers. They are all terrible, far below even his usual low standards, but he keeps crapping them out because they pay.
He makes a living out of being permanently offended and angry. An SJW, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
So now that you have been totally destroyed when you tried to comment on content, you are instead doing character assassination. He's only in it for the money, not to point out the hypocrisy of the bigoted Sarkeesian.
Re: (Score:2)
If he was in it to point out hypocrisy and bigotry he wouldn't begin his videos with a selection of memes and image macros. He is a university lecturer, an intelligent man capable of forming a rational argument and talking about it on camera. He doesn't do that, he does the classic warm-up of ad-hominem attacks, appeals to meme and incredulity before getting to his poorly researched point.
It's the same trick that other scammers and people with no real argument use. Psychics always have a massive build up to
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So are you saying she isn't a bigot? That she really isn't saying that everything is racist, sexist, and homophobic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Yup, she really said that she sees everything as racist, sexist, and homophobic, and had to tone herself down to be more included by others. This is bigotry and hypocrisy.
You may not like the way he makes his videos, but it wouldn't matter how he made the videos, you would attack because he is tarnishing Sarkeesian's reputatio
Re: (Score:2)
I watched the whole of that debate, and she isn't claiming that everything is racist, sexist and homophobic. The opposite, in fact. The clip is just edited down to give that impression.
Anyway, that isn't a specific argument or point, it's a general statement. Come on, this should be easy for you. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, did you watch the same video I did, because it sure doesn't seem so. You are claiming the exact opposite of what she did. You must sexistly feel she needs you to fix her mistakes because her little woman powers couldn't think herself out of a box, because that is how you act.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, ONE example of a SPECIFIC argument. You act like there are many, let's see some of them.
Re:Expect drama (Score:4, Insightful)
It might make sense for this to be considered in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Patreon is almost literally "Patronage".
There is a very good reason that for a long time, charity was considered best when it was anonymous.
Charity and Patronage are not really the same thing.
Patronage in many respects has as much in common with charity as it does to an employer/employee relationship. Patronage is somewhere in the middle of that continuum.
That said, I don't disagree with you that there are definitely situations where anonymous charity and patronage have benefits... BUT there are lots of situations where patronage doesn't need or benefit from anonymity; and where benefits are realized for
Confession (Score:3, Funny)
The only reason my name is on the list is because I thought it was Ashley Madison.
Gg, sjw? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Some prominent users of Patreon have been involved in GamerGate harassment, and others have been victims of that harassment. The hack could be of interest to either side, but is most likely to benefit the victims.
For example, YouTube retards Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00r use Patreon to make quite a lot of money posting their anti-feminist videos. While they themselves maintain a careful distance from the worst abuse (although Thunderf00t was kicked off Twitter) there is likely to be some damning private m
Re: (Score:2)
Good tactic, start pushing the bad qualities and insults your group gets onto the opposition.
Pointing out hypocrisy is always a good tactic. Nobody likes it.
Support of a False Narrative, and "Cyber-Violence" (Score:4, Interesting)
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
A unethical journalist tried to blame the hack on Gamergate, despite the fact that the apparent hacker has made many anti-Gamergate statements [reddit.com]. The journalist then went to a popular pro-Gamergate hub to make a show [reddit.com] of doing the due diligence and research he should have done before publishing his inaccurate article, and got deservedly ripped to shreds in the comments.
The bottom line is the hacker appears to be third-party troll, so you should take any motivations he voices (pro- or anti- GG or SJW) with a boulder of salt.
Note that both pro-Gamergate and SJW content creators make money from Patreon, but IMO this hack has very little to do with the usual animosity between the two groups.
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
For those who didn't hear about it a week ago (there was strangely no Slashdot story), a recent event pusshing that narrative was the presentation of the "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls" report to (by?) an offshoot of the UN (UN Women). The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
http://time.com/4049106/un-cyb... [time.com]
The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment. The report also argues that “cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,” suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse.
It's a such a blatant attempt to redefine criticism and disagreement as harassment and threats, to demonize free speech as a pretense to censorship.
The report also attacks video games by citing ridiculous sources (all at least a decade old) which say "Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokémon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games" and references Jack Thompson himself.
So it should come as no surprise that two of the invited the speakers (Quinn and Sarkeesian) were "SJWs" best known as prominent opponents of the Gamergate movement. Yep, Gamergate, the customer revolt demanding more ethical game journalism, whose criticism of and disagreement with the demonstrably unethical gaming press was mischaracterized as (you guessed it) "harrassment" and "threats" and widely censored in an attempt to protect the corrupt journalists, all because those journalists expressed the right politics.
Gamergate (and the FTC, responding to Gamergate pressure) succeeded in forcing many corrupt websites to update their ethics policies and start disclosing personal (and financial) relationships to the subjects of their articles, which is why you always see so many disingenuous and corrupt individuals shitting a brick over it. Two outlets that anti-Gamergate was notoriously unsuccessful at shutting down were tweets and youtube videos, which is why you saw Quinn issuing a false DMCA (against youtuber MundaneMatt) a year ago, and Sarkeesian whi
Re: (Score:1)
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
I'm not interested in censorship, merely preventing further harassment. Note that Thunderf00t, for example, has already been kicked off Twitter for his abuse. It's not about censoring his speech, it's about stopping the cycle of harassment that he perpetuates for financial gain. It's obvious he s motivated by money rather than ideology, so once the money goes away so will he.
The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
Your dismissal of mental health issues as somehow less real or serious than physical health issues is disgusting. If someone is beaten
Re: (Score:2)
it's about stopping the cycle of harassment that he perpetuates for financial gain.
So, it is about silencing his speech because you don't agree with him (even though he quite clearly shows the truth in video evidence).
Yeah, we're not trying to censor anyone but the ones who don't agree with us, real generous there AmiMoJo.
It's obvious he s motivated by money rather than ideology, so once the money goes away so will he.
Yeah, I imagine if you are successful in getting his university to stop funding the research he works on, he won't be able to post online anymore as he will be living in a box. But in your world, lying about someone to get them to lose their jobs is perfectly acceptable
Re: (Score:2)
I will defend Thunderf00t's right to speak to the death, but what I won't defend is his incitement to mob violence. He has already been kicked off some platforms for things he said, and every video just fuels the fire. If he really cared about the issues he would take a very different tone, but instead he does what makes him the most money regardless of the consequences.
He can say what he likes, but others are free not to listen or give him a platform. If he breaks their terms of service, they can kick him
Re: (Score:2)
, but instead he does what makes him the most money regardless of the consequences.
You mean like posting a video asking for money, then an hour later faking a rape threat?
http://www.returnofkings.com/4... [returnofkings.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny you post a link to an XKCD where it states:
Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.
Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.
Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.
Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite a single example of Sarkeesian taking a specific, well reasoned and articulated criticism of her work (not her personally, her work) and claiming it was harassment? Just one.
Re: (Score:2)
Would she (I'll even settle for you) ever admit there are "well reasoned and articulated" criticisms of her work in existence? Just one. I've noticed a pretty distinct trend of complete silence on any critiques and seemingly an attempt to frame it as the only opposition is in the form of harassment. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd love for you to correct me. Will you label me as anything other than a "gamergater" for simply asking the question?
Thunderfoot isn't particularly nice to her but he really doesn't have to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure I'll be embarrassed when my Anonymous Coward account becomes public information and subject to ridicule. I certainly don't look forward to that.
Found you:
Anonymous Coward
5428 Somestreet Rd, Apt 23
Cityville NB 010101
SSN#: 000-00-0000
You can't hide, Anonymous Coward!
"No credit card info leaked" (Score:1)
Troy Hunt recently posted an (IMHO) excellent blog entry about why leaked credit card info is much less of a problem than leakage of other personal data.
See: http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/09/relax-its-only-your-credit-card-near.html