Re: Autodesk cowed by threat of attack by RTMark (and workgroup@rtmark.com)

[Brad Waugh <waugh@lola.phy.queensu.ca>]

[: hacktivism :]

Bronc Buster wrote:
> 
> [: hacktivism :]
> 
> So now RTMark turns to using the same tactics eToys and this AutoDesk
> company use; bullying. We will bully a small company into doing what WE
> want or else do what we did to eToys (which was really NOTHING - proven by
> the stocks preformance and other companies in the same business stocks).
> 

Exactly what is the logic here?  If it isn't acheiving anything exactly
how is it 
bullying?  

> This is doing nothing more then giving hacktivism as bad name. It equates
> Hacktivism with strong arm tactics, 

Oh, come on.  Surely it leads to a broad cross-section of responses from
people with the particular responses depending in part on the class
background of the person.  Without looking at the different responses
and who they belong to it isn't much of a point from an activist
perspective.  There are those of us who do not choose to do their
activism as a popularity contest, but rather, based on principle.


> which is what it should NOT be about,
> but be about putting an end to.

I thought that part of the mission of this list was to define exactly
what hacktivism is.  Bald assertions from you lead nowhere with regards
to that goal.  I can simply counter with an opposing assertion and we
get a stalemate.  Why exactly does hacktivism preclude any particular
tactics?  I would love to be able to say that real hacktivism" must
accord with the principles of libertarian socialism, but who cares if I
do say so?  


> 
> RTMark needs to get a clue. I knew few 'hackers', or 'activists' for that
> matter who support their methods. I think that point was made clear after
> the last fiasco with eToys/eToy when everyone turned on RTMark, including
> the people they said they wanted to help, eToy.
> 

Sure, and I know people who didn't support the tactics employed by the
WTO protestors in Seattle.  So were those people not activists?  

> These methods are the wrong methods.

As defined by you, who have what claim exaclty to defining right and
wrong???  It is not that I don't think you should tell us how you _feel_
about these methods, but this list has received plenty of your
unsubstantiated "wisdom" every time this kind of action comes up, yet
you do nothing more than repeat the same unsupported assertions. This
will remain a waste of list time until you back it up with some deeper
analysis.

So be clear.  How are they "wrong?"  

> 
> regards,
>    Bronc Buster
>   bronc@2600.com


Brad


[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]