Full-scale cyberwar over WikiLeaks

The internet can END?! (as we know it?)

Im new to this kind of techno babble, can someone sum up whats happening in a hillarious fashion?

The ACTA. What's known about it has caused panic over the internet.

Except the final version of ACTA turned out not to be a threat to the Internet after all.

right wing skiddies are retailiating in force in a clan now

http://footballanarchy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=133490 http://uk.webhostdir.com/news/ShowItem.aspx?ID=70879 http://twitter.com/AnonymousDown

Okay. The war has ended I think. With Assenge freed we don't have to worry... Unless that anime ban causes another war... and ACTA starts another...

I love xkcd.

Also: I quite doubt the war is over simply because Assange was released granted bail.

If 4chan users gave a shit about what's right, then what the hell are they doing on 4chan in the first place?

edited 16th Dec '10 6:32:11 PM by neoYTPism

That sounds like a No True Scotsman Argument

Like he said there, xkcd is funny.

edited 16th Dec '10 10:34:31 PM by deathjavu

Perhaps a better form of the same argument would be "If they're against secrecy, why are they Anonymous?"

Double Standard between permitting secrecy of government and personal secrecy, which are separate enough to be a justifiable split in my mind.

To what extent?

He is free on conditions ie they are watching him every minute and he is low jacked. But on the plus side the Brits are questioning the charges.

About what I expected to happen. I wonder if the U.S. cyber command is perhaps stretching its hand over this a bit to see what they can do.

edited 17th Dec '10 5:10:45 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Okay. The war has ended I think...

But who won?

Well, since the goal of the war was to free Assenge, Anonymous won.

Plus didn't Assenge deny bail?

I LOL'd hard after reading this.

Allan Aokage beat you to it.

The war is over...the trial hasn't even begun yet! We just saw the end to the first battle. Really more like the X-ty battle in a long running war for internet freedom/ software freedom which started 80's-90's.

edited 17th Dec '10 8:33:25 AM by americanbadass

Um he is not free he is under house arrest more or less and with a low jack on his leg.

And he makes me face palm. He can't decide who is after him. He supposedly said its not the governments its the banks now. -_- please make up your mind you paranoid loon.

"That sounds like a No True Scotsman Argument" - deathjavu

Why, exactly? I was asking what people who believe in good are doing on 4chan. I fail to see how that somehow automatically implies redefining standards to exclude particular outcomes.

I do agree that the "why are they anonymous" part isn't necessarily hypocritical, though. Like others said, there's a difference between government secrecy and anonymity. Though one could regard it as a little hypocritical for wikileaks SOURCES to hide behind anonymity while trampling the secrecy of, in some cases, the organizations for which they were supposed to work. (Especially when you consider that some of their sources were within the governments and militaries of the countries whose secrets they leaked.)

edited 17th Dec '10 7:35:32 PM by neoYTPism

Why, exactly? I was asking what people who believe in good are doing on 4chan. I fail to see how that somehow automatically implies redefining standards to exclude particular outcomes.

My point was, what about 4chan necessarily implies that good people can't or wouldn't want to use it? If your answer is "Because it's 4chan!!" then you are indeed redefining the standard (of 4chan user) to exclude particular outcomes (is a good person).

Besides, hardly anyone thinks of themselves as "bad" or "evil". There's a reason people invest so much effort in things like rationalization, you know.

Also, you can use [[quote block]] and [[/quote block]], minus the spaces, to quote people. The bold text followed by a person's handle is a bit disconcerting, sometimes. Feels like an accusation.

In slightly more OT, I thought the big threat to the internet was a loss of net neutrality. And now we're getting websites, not even websites that are breaking the law but websites that are merely disliked, being shut...down...oh, bugger.

edited 17th Dec '10 10:42:00 PM by deathjavu

Wait which sites got shuttered that weren't breaking the law?

"My point was, what about 4chan necessarily implies that good people can't or wouldn't want to use it? If your answer is "Because it's 4chan!!" then you are indeed redefining the standard (of 4chan user) to exclude particular outcomes (is a good person)." - deathjavu

Except that this ISN'T my argument, and you have no apparent reason to conclude that it is. Way to jump to conclusions.

I'm referring to what a depraved cesspool 4chan is. A site notorious for its role in facilitating harassment of grieving families, a site known for trolling and humiliating random youtubers, including small children, (remember ChristianU2ber?) and for its mob-mentality that gathers up its users to gang up on those perceived as enemies, regardless of whether those enemies are in the right or not. What kind of moral reference frame could reasonably consider it okay to participate in that site?

And none of this nonsense about rationalizations either. They don't make wrong behaviour right. They don't involve anything but applied willful ignorance, used to lie to oneself and make it a little easier to get away with lying to others. And when it comes to a site so indefensible as 4chan, rationalizations mean nothing to me.

Wait....are people actually feeling sorry for 4chan?

Jesus

^^... I don't even know what to say to this. How can you possibly be serious?

Serious about which part?

Just their general uneducated bashing of 4chan, and their really awful guilt-by-association mentality?