Re: Target?

[Bronc Buster <bronc@2600.com>]

[: hacktivism :]


I know my last post was kind off wabbeling, but I had been up the better
part of 24 hours :/ Sorry all

Now here you are almost reforming my thoughts as to what I think we are
talking about. The GodHatesFags fiasco was exactly what I think a really
good example of Hacktivism is. It was something tangable that people could
see. Like I said, change the one TV, and everyone looking at it will see
what you want them to.

This, although, is way cry from a flood net, where people who might not
know, just think that their connection is lagged, or the server they want
to reach is down for some reason or another. It doesn't deliver anything
for the average person to go see, like an old fashion sitting on the steps
of city hall, or changing that domain or simply defacing a web site would.

I think, not to sound cruel, but the only reason that the flood net has
gotton as much attention as it has is because it is a new, and novel idea
for reaching an end.

As far as people taking part in an event, sure, that's always been a
crucial part of activism in any form in any time. People are what make it
work, but then again on the Internet, the rules are changed. One person
could deface something, say the web site for the Whitehouse *cough*
*cough*, and get noticed by a lot more people who visit it (plus the
media coverage of it), then if a group of 20 or 30 people went out to some
place no one could see and started protesting. Maybe a few media outlets
would pick up on it because it's a novel story, but that's the reason why,
because its diffrent.

I think something like the GodHatesFags fisaco, the stuff we did in China
with the firewalls, and the Indian Nuclear Center hacks are what
hacktivism is about.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to say that anyones efforts are in vain,
or are (god forbid) wrong, quite the opposite. If you feel what you are
doing makes a diffrence, more power to you, I just think there are better
ways to get the job done.

regards,
   Bronc Buster
  bronc@2600.com


On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 xdaydreamx@gmx.net wrote:

> [: hacktivism :]
> 
> Well, about kicking yourself in the arse I don't know but I definitely
> think there are a few contradictions in what you say if you claim that the
> zapatista sit-in is ineffective while the aim of activism is to educate as well
> as spread the word, sometimes even by slightly "illegal" means. After all,
> hasn't this whole list kicked off precisely because of the sit-in?
> Taking a slightly more clear cut example, what would you say about the
> "godhatesfags -> godlovesfags" hack? Clearly, using the power that fell into
> the latter's webmaster's hand to mislead hundreds of people and negatively
> affect the cause of the former's webmaster could be seen as an illegal act. BUT
> IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST HACKS EVER! It managed to grab thousands of people's
> attention for 72 hours. This was power well used. The site was eventually
> given back but the "damage" had been done. People logged on to the site
> _because_ it was hacked. Granted, I doubt the scam was about "reforming" regular
> visitors to "godhatesfags", but it _did_ make thousands of people take
> notice of a truly activist occurance that they could tune in to with nothing more
> than the click of a mouse, an exciting event on their computer screen. The
> zapatista sit-in may not be doing this in a way that every user can check up
> on. It is trying to get people involved though by making them take part in
> the sit-in rather than just look at the hack. Whoever disagrees, disagrees
> and doesn't take part. Whoever does, makes a mark. Whether the Mexican
> government takes any notice of it or not is beside the point. People are
> reaffirming their support for the Zapatista movement for themselves. And it's also a
> nice little stunt.
> 
> jjf


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