2245
Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference
(techcrunch.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
2245 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
78511 readers
3110 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is so much difference. You are clearly ignorant on the subject matter if you're making such a claim. The most striking difference is that SovCits are individualists.
That's literally the risk we all face.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn't exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
No it's not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look, I'm against putting people in concentration camps but this isn't the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren't committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn't right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don't go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you're an American or famous. Likewise you don't go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it's ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you're truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn't want to wear veils, so it's ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
That argument is ridiculous as well.
I think this is an extension of the paradox of intolerance. Laws are never absolute, and when one side has no respect for laws and enforces only what is advantageous for them this kind of action absolutely should count as self defence. We should fully support taking away the anonymity and feeling of immunity from those who abuse the law.
It's kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can't put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
Indeed I would. But that’s because it would be someone trying to silence a group and promote intolerance. The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
Sure
And therin lies the problem. The democrats may indeed investigate and prosecute their own, see Al Franken…..but the other side has no intention of doing the same. So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
That's not the same and it's not even the argument lol. My argument was that you're tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn't a crime.
Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn't working we should abandon those laws.
I'll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.
That is exactly what is necessary, to snuff out intolerant voices as the one thing the tolerant must do. Opposing opinions is what they claim to be, but the intolerant hate spewers isn’t about opposing opinions at all, it’s rather “you are not entitled to your opinion”. It’s a false equivalency that allows intolerant to gain an advantage because they do not play by the same rules or definitions. The whole moving goalposts strategy for instance.
Then the outcome of that decision is inevitably war, except all of the worlds largest militaries are controlled by the intolerant countries.