Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#101

Post by vorpalhex »

takeda wrote: post #81
vorpalhex wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several of the "anonymous" (the hacker pseudo personality) accounts were moving in support of the protestors. It wouldn't surprise me if that triggered a backlash internally. So you probably have people from 4chan/Anonymous who are for the protestors.. and people from 4chan/Anonymous who are against it. I wouldn't use that as evidence Antifa isn't involved. I think the video evidence makes it clear there are plenty o…

> So you probably have people from 4chan/Anonymous who are for the protestors.. and people from 4chan/Anonymous who are against it. 4 Chan for the protesters? Have you ever visited their page? > I wouldn't use that as evidence Antifa isn't involved. I think the video evidence makes it clear there are plenty of people involved in the violence. FBI stated that they found no evidence of antifa involvement.

FBI field office in Washington stated that they had no intelligence currently that Antifa was involved.. in the Washington area.. as of the 3rd of June, with the caveat that it was early and they were still looking at facts and investigating.

Yes, I read that headline too. It's important to read more than just the headline.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#102

Post by thwarted »

save_ferris wrote: post #98
zozbot234 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Weaponized" speech is an Orwellian phrase. You can weaponize weapons, but legitimate speech (outside of clear and present danger, like inciting lawless action or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater) should always be responded to with speech.

The problem nowadays is that it’s getting harder to separate legitimate speech from automated amplified speech. Those who are able to build networks of bot accounts are able to deeply undermine discourse in dangerous ways, and social media platforms aren’t financially incentivized to deal with it. Twitter could tell us right now how many bots are on the platform, but they never will because it could tank their stock.…

This point reveals an angle that is rarely recognized: what needs responding to is not the mass amount of speech that comes from automated bots, for automated bots won't listen to the response. What needs responding to is the people who listen to automated bots.

The concept of responding to speech with speech is focused on reason and debate between the speakers themselves. But with automated amplified speech, no debate can exist because, at the surface, there are not multiple human actors. And at a separate layer, those who listen to amplified automated speech can not be reasoned with or debated with, the opinions are not their own and if they were reasonable they wouldn't be listening to the automated speech to begin with.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#103

Post by ausoi66 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #7

Anti-racism sites are being knocked offline... and some people still think that white nationalists and nazi's are completely uninvolved in the street violence we've been seeing. Yeah right. This is Anonymous/4chan M.O., and it and "Antifa" are fake labels which white nationalists are using to cloak their violent plans.

Every White Nationalist group I am in is full of people unanimously happy to sit back and enjoy the show.

Nobody is involved, nobody wants to be involved, nobody is encouraging anyone to get involved. Indeed, there are often reminders of why it is so important not to get involved.

And why would we? An anti-White state is under attack from hordes of Africans and brainwashed Whites whose radicalization they permitted and facilitated. It's like watching two people you hate beat each other to a pulp- it's marvellous!

The media is desperately trying to pin the blame on 'White Supremacists' (I don't know a single one), desperately trying to incite White resistance, so that they may erupt in condemnation of Whites... And yet we are giving them nothing. It's still just blacks and blues fighting it out. It's a lot of fun.

Join some pro-White telegram groups. They're not hard to find. You'll learn a lot!

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#104

Post by thrwaway69 »

kitotik wrote: post #99
thrwaway69 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they don't care as long as lulz. Don't think too much about what kids like to do in free time.

I’ve never understood this train of thought that kids have no meaningful thoughts or points of view. It’s not like adulthood has some magic turning point where ignorance turns to enlightenment. I’d wager that far more adults are manipulative, pathological liars than kids tend to be.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to generalize this over everything they do but lulz is a good enough reason for the online fake propaganda and trolling in 99% cases. Just go on discord and find 16 year old haxors with waifu pics.

There's no profound political or sociological reason behind this like you mentioned yourself, adults are manipulative while kids tend not to be as much.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#105

Post by marcosdumay »

bogwog wrote: post #50

I hate how the internet makes everyone think they're smarter than everyone else. Scheming malicious losers write fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people, then skeptics come across it and become paranoid and angry, and then they make fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people. But in the end, everyone involved is a stupid naive scheming malicious paranoid loser. Reg…

That is a flaw of mass media, not of the Internet. When a single channel broadcasts for an entire population, it must only talk about things most of the population is interested on, so the channel becomes single minded. If people are immersed on those channels, they become single minded too, and single minded people are crazy (AFAIK, always).

For most of the Internet's time, it was a force against this. It was a peer to peer network with a large diversity of subjects. But on the last few years it has become mass media too, with all its problems. If there wasn't Internet, the stupidity would be on TV, that had already become highly centralized (and thus massive) by the time the Internet popularized.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#106

Post by 0-O-0 »

arel wrote: post #17
rapsey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes

Globalisation has many problems but _causes_ racism? I would argue it's demagogues who take advantage of societal breakdown to inflame inherent racism. More generally we also have a choice regardless of circumstances to not be racist. I can see how as a species we're not there yet though.

I believe that argument here is that globalisation causes a bunch of interactions that wouldn't have happened otherwise, that leads to strife ("they took our jobs" is one of the plethora of scenarios) and that leads to racism.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#107

Post by save_ferris »

marcosdumay wrote: post #105
bogwog wrote: post #50

I hate how the internet makes everyone think they're smarter than everyone else. Scheming malicious losers write fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people, then skeptics come across it and become paranoid and angry, and then they make fake news and propaganda to incite anger in stupid and naive people. But in the end, everyone involved is a stupid naive scheming malicious paranoid loser. Reg…

That is a flaw of mass media, not of the Internet. When a single channel broadcasts for an entire population, it must only talk about things most of the population is interested on, so the channel becomes single minded. If people are immersed on those channels, they become single minded too, and single minded people are crazy (AFAIK, always). For most of the Internet's time, it was a force against this. It was a peer…

I completely disagree with this premise.

The internet helped to consolidate print and broadcast media into the very single channel you discuss here. Furthermore, the internet, and more specifically the internet’s advertising model, created perverse incentives to encourage media companies to engage with content that users were more likely to click on. Prior to this model existing, media outlets didn’t have fine-grained metrics on what kinds of content sold and what didn’t, and not having to worry about this allowed them to more freely cover broader aspects of the news.

Now, everything is driven by the click and the online ad model. This is further compounded, yet again by the internet, that subscription revenue fell off a cliff and never recovered as people relied more and more on the internet for free news. A major pillar of media income evaporated a people stopped paying for news, which further drove media outlets to rely even more on the perverse advertising model I described above.

The flaws of the mass media and the internet cannot be separated because their function and purpose overlap in fundamental ways.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#109

Post by krebs_liebhaber »

scottlocklin wrote: post #88

As usual with this sort of "people doing things online" thing; a completely vacuous conspiracy theory. Here is the actual source article: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cyberattacks-since-the-murder-of... Here is the plot showing something allegedly different happening this month: https://blog-cloudflare-com-assets.storage.googleapis.com/20... What's the p-value on a t-test of difference there, cloudflare spooks? By eye…

It's always an incredibly sad display when HN types talk about politics. The only thing they're less qualified to talk about is religion.

Re: Anti-racism sites hit by wave of cyber-attacks

#110

Post by simonh »

takeda wrote: post #96
simonh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antifa are very well organised and very much a real thing. Of course like minded people get involved locally as well, so there are probably a lot more people 'identifying as Antifa' than long term Antifa people, but they are a persistent organised group and some people are into it full time. Luis Enrique Marquez is a well known example.

Antifa doesn't really have leadership, it doesn't even have set of rules to follow. There are even disagreements between people regarding their approach. It is just bunch of smaller groups that use the term to identify themselves.

Yes, I agree completely. I think those attributes, for a movement like that, are a strength. They're pretty effective at doing what they're aiming to do.
Post reply on HN