I wonder how many of these "neo-Nazis" play Call of Duty, and don't realize which side they're playing on ?
If Anonymous 'pwnd' the Daily Stormer, they did a spectacularly awful job
Doubts have been cast over claims that hacktivists have taken control of neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer. Elements of the loose hacker collective Anonymous supposedly took control of the site as a reprisal for the death of anti-racist protestor Heather Heyer after she was struck by a car during protests by white …
-
-
Monday 14th August 2017 17:50 GMT Palpy
American white supremacists and racists?
They've always been here, of course. Cockroach-like, they periodically poke their antennae out from under the garbage to see if it's safe in the open. It only takes a wink and a not from those in power for them to start scuttling onto the streets, dreams of triumph in their squttering little brains.
It's not surprising that Donald Trump is now one of those giving the wink-and-nod to the cockroaches. He appears to carry a load of neuroses related to his parents, and both he and his father were (rather famously) sued for discriminatory rental practices, and settled with the Feds. Farther back, when the KKK marched and rioted in Queens in 1927, Fred Trump was there. He was arrested, but not charged, and we do not know if he was supporting the KKK or not. (Donald has said it never happened, "and anyway, no one was charged." Which latter phrase pretty much admits that it did happen. And to be picky, "no one was charged" is incorrect -- some men were brought up on charges, ranging from assault to disorderly conduct. Just not Daddy.)
But, anyway. I expect Donald Trump, who hates admitting he was ever wrong, secretly identifies with white supremacists. Clearly, he thinks he is the finest person on the planet, and after all, he is... pinkish beige. Well, mostly pink with an orange fringe, but he identifies as "white".
Addendum, to the point of the story: I agree that it's a face-saving attempt by the Stormer staff. They weren't hacked, but they'd rather try to make their reader think that "race traitors" sabotaged them than let them see they were kicked off.
-
Tuesday 15th August 2017 15:51 GMT Robert Carnegie
Anonymous
"Anonymous" isn't an organisation, it's just a word, and a few graphical memes to go with it. Anyone can say they're "Anonymous" and they may be not particularly hacker-skilled. They also may be not social-justice aligned. You can be "Anonymous" and determined to "Take Back America".
-
-
-
Monday 14th August 2017 18:41 GMT patrickstar
Re: As for free speech
No - they are just being mean to people. Really mean in certain cases, but it still falls under freedom of speech under US law *.
Note also that there is no need for the use of past tense - the site is up, including the article that started this little spectacle with their previous domain registrar.
DS has been around for something like 5 years. This is far from the worst controversy they've been in.
* Or not according to the recent lawsuit about DS inciting harassment against the woman who tried to blackmail Richard Spencers mom, but it seems to be on pretty darn shaky ground legally.
-
Monday 14th August 2017 18:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: As for free speech
The hypothetical of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is used almost exclusively by people who don't understand free speech theory and specifics of implementation in the US. I suspect that if most people understood that the context it was being used in was to justify imprisoning someone for anti-war and anti-draft speech they might be a bit more circumspect about it.
Link to explanation by a well-known First Amendment attorney:
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
