[gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they migrated to gitorious. Which the repo being in violation of the ToS is a lie, but do go on. Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of interest for doxxing. Find and contacting representatives of companies is considered doxxing? This sort of behavior has been going on well before the creation of the internet. I mean every time someone went to complain about a product ever that would be considered doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially compromised. If by targeted you mean I personally found tweets proving that he was engaging in harassing behavior, while his twitter profile said he worked at Github, then yes I compromised him. I spent 10 minutes finding him and collecting his public tweets and another 5 minutes making an image macro that circulated around. I had actually had conversations with him over #GamerGate and so it wasnt hard to find him. I even found the tweet where he gleefully informed his friend that the repo was gone like he was proud of what he had done. I also found another Github employee who was *actively* abusing people using the #GamerGate tag and also engaged in doxxing people who were contacting Github support through their contact form about the matter. He also didnt think it was wrong to violate Github's own privacy policy by doing this. I find it odd that you feel that a business should not know what their employees are doing to their own business that can negatively affect it. Or do you believe I'm censoring them? Do you support people who believe in deleting someone's data because they, or their friends, personally dont like it? Why should any company ever use Github knowing that if they piss off an employee of Github that their hard work could just evaporate? Get over yourself thinking you have some high morality when you cant see what consequences there is deleting a repo under false pretenses purely for political reasons. This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you to deal with this matter. Explain how it violates the ToS? We already know that there is nothing in the repo condoning harassment. We already know contacting businesses is not harassment or doxxing, so what argument do you have other than you personally just dont like it? Thanks. No, no thank you. -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Gitorious group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they migrated to gitorious. https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb: https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/ba751c3a3dedde6f3c3676d3a5da19ce0eb43a2e:Operation%20Dig%20Dig%20Dig Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of interest for doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially compromised. This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you to deal with this matter. Thanks. First off, a boycott is not harassment, it is the consumers choice to make their decision to take their dollar somewhere else. In order to do this wisely they need to know both sides of the story. They can read the original gamers are dead posts for one side, they can also read articles in support of GamerGate to round out their knowledge. The repository is a source of information. Nothing more, nothing less. Dig dig dig does single people out for research. Because GamerGate supporters believes that there are people who have engaged in collusion and corruption, if you were looking for people who were racist or sexist, would you not tell other people who they were and say: maybe we should look into this?. This is the same situation, dig dig dig calls for researching through public information and does not endorse or request any doxxing or illegal activities to obtain information. There is nothing nefarious about this operation. Operation Disrespectful Nod singles out people yes, because they are the representatives of their companies. This is common sense, if you want to talk to a company you need to know whom to talk to. Putting their names out there is nothing different than finding it on the contact pages of their respectful sites. They are not targets, they are the contact point for their company. If you were to contact a group you did not agree with, wouldn't you do the same? And spread the information if you wanted more people to share your voice? Which encourages being polite and voicing your concerns in a reasonable way? Also this is not a spam campaign, this is a consumer uproar. There is nothing illegal about encouraging people to voice their opinions, this is what leaflet and grassroots campaign do all the time. GreenPeace hands out leaflets, we hand out links. Twitter Flooding Instructions.md is a NOT walkthrough for creating sockpuppet accounts. It is a guide to creating a twitter account for those who do not have one, or who do not want to associate their realname with an account because they are afraid of retribution. It is not about sockpuppets it is about protecting yourself through anonymity. The repository does not incite threats, nor violence, not spam. You are wrong (IMO) and trying to remove speech and content which offends you, we. or at least I, live in America where speech is free and debate and polite disagreements benefit everyone by allowing civil discourse to educate both parties on differing views. Where does the article violate the terms of service? Specific examples please. As someone who contributes to the repo I would like to know what needs to be edit-ed if it is illegal in some way. Thank you -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Gitorious group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:53:31 PM UTC-4, Ethan Eldridge wrote: On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they migrated to gitorious. https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb: https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/ba751c3a3dedde6f3c3676d3a5da19ce0eb43a2e:Operation%20Dig%20Dig%20Dig Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of interest for doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially compromised. This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you to deal with this matter. Thanks. First off, a boycott is not harassment, it is the consumers choice to make their decision to take their dollar somewhere else. In order to do this wisely they need to know both sides of the story. They can read the original gamers are dead posts for one side, they can also read articles in support of GamerGate to round out their knowledge. The repository is a source of information. Nothing more, nothing less. Dig dig dig does single people out for research. Because GamerGate supporters believes that there are people who have engaged in collusion and corruption, if you were looking for people who were racist or sexist, would you not tell other people who they were and say: maybe we should look into this?. This is the same situation, dig dig dig calls for researching through public information and does not endorse or request any doxxing or illegal activities to obtain information. There is nothing nefarious about this operation. Operation Disrespectful Nod singles out people yes, because they are the representatives of their companies. This is common sense, if you want to talk to a company you need to know whom to talk to. Putting their names out there is nothing different than finding it on the contact pages of their respectful sites. They are not targets, they are the contact point for their company. If you were to contact a group you did not agree with, wouldn't you do the same? And spread the information if you wanted more people to share your voice? Which encourages being polite and voicing your concerns in a reasonable way? Also this is not a spam campaign, this is a consumer uproar. There is nothing illegal about encouraging people to voice their opinions, this is what leaflet and grassroots campaign do all the time. GreenPeace hands out leaflets, we hand out links. Twitter Flooding Instructions.md is a NOT walkthrough for creating sockpuppet accounts. It is a guide to creating a twitter account for those who do not have one, or who do not want to associate their realname with an account because they are afraid of retribution. It is not about sockpuppets it is about protecting yourself through anonymity. The repository does not incite threats, nor violence, not spam. You are wrong (IMO) and trying to remove speech and content which offends you, we. or at least I, live in America where speech is free and debate and polite disagreements benefit everyone by allowing civil discourse to educate both parties on differing views. Where does the article violate the terms of service? Specific examples please. As someone who contributes to the repo I would like to know what needs to be edit-ed if it is illegal in some way. Thank you It violates this clause of the TOS: the Content is not defamatory, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party; on pretty much any page you care to name. Just because you think it's right or justifiable doesn't make it so. -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Gitorious group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
I asked for specific examples of the violations, not a blanket statement that it all does. Let's take this page as an example then https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb:Operation%20Disrespectful%20Nod/conduct%20guide.md, Please show me - The defamation on this page. - Show me the threats or inciting for violence - Show me the violations of privacy, As far as I know, all emails on this page were found in public sources such as this http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-customer-service-and-jeff-bezos-emails-2013-10 I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can show me areas where there are problems. And I'm happy to remove content that is actually a problem. But I can't do anything about it if you say: everything is wrong and don't point to actual examples. On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Michael Reilly omnipotentent...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:53:31 PM UTC-4, Ethan Eldridge wrote: On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they migrated to gitorious. https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb : https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/ba751c3a3dedde6f3c3676d3a5da19ce0eb43a2e:Operation%20Dig%20Dig%20Dig Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of interest for doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially compromised. This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you to deal with this matter. Thanks. First off, a boycott is not harassment, it is the consumers choice to make their decision to take their dollar somewhere else. In order to do this wisely they need to know both sides of the story. They can read the original gamers are dead posts for one side, they can also read articles in support of GamerGate to round out their knowledge. The repository is a source of information. Nothing more, nothing less. Dig dig dig does single people out for research. Because GamerGate supporters believes that there are people who have engaged in collusion and corruption, if you were looking for people who were racist or sexist, would you not tell other people who they were and say: maybe we should look into this?. This is the same situation, dig dig dig calls for researching through public information and does not endorse or request any doxxing or illegal activities to obtain information. There is nothing nefarious about this operation. Operation Disrespectful Nod singles out people yes, because they are the representatives of their companies. This is common sense, if you want to talk to a company you need to know whom to talk to. Putting their names out there is nothing different than finding it on the contact pages of their respectful sites. They are not targets, they are the contact point for their company. If you were to contact a group you did not agree with, wouldn't you do the same? And spread the information if you wanted more people to share your voice? Which encourages being polite and voicing your concerns in a reasonable way? Also this is not a spam campaign, this is a consumer uproar. There is nothing illegal about encouraging people to voice their opinions, this is what leaflet and grassroots campaign do all the time. GreenPeace hands out leaflets, we hand out links. Twitter Flooding Instructions.md is a NOT walkthrough for creating sockpuppet accounts. It is a guide to creating a twitter account for those who do not have one, or who do not want to associate their realname with an account because they are afraid of retribution. It is not about sockpuppets it is about protecting yourself through anonymity. The repository does not incite threats, nor violence, not spam. You are wrong (IMO) and trying to remove speech and content which offends you, we. or at least I, live in America where speech is free and debate and polite disagreements benefit everyone by allowing civil discourse to educate both parties on differing views. Where does the article violate the terms of service? Specific examples please. As someone who contributes to the repo I would like to know what needs to be edit-ed if it is illegal in some way. Thank you It violates this clause of the TOS: the Content is not defamatory, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party; on pretty much any page you care to name. Just because you think it's right or justifiable doesn't make it so. -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are
[gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:00:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:53:31 PM UTC-4, Ethan Eldridge wrote: On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote: After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they migrated to gitorious. https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb: https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/ba751c3a3dedde6f3c3676d3a5da19ce0eb43a2e:Operation%20Dig%20Dig%20Dig Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of interest for doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially compromised. This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you to deal with this matter. Thanks. First off, a boycott is not harassment, it is the consumers choice to make their decision to take their dollar somewhere else. In order to do this wisely they need to know both sides of the story. They can read the original gamers are dead posts for one side, they can also read articles in support of GamerGate to round out their knowledge. The repository is a source of information. Nothing more, nothing less. Dig dig dig does single people out for research. Because GamerGate supporters believes that there are people who have engaged in collusion and corruption, if you were looking for people who were racist or sexist, would you not tell other people who they were and say: maybe we should look into this?. This is the same situation, dig dig dig calls for researching through public information and does not endorse or request any doxxing or illegal activities to obtain information. There is nothing nefarious about this operation. Operation Disrespectful Nod singles out people yes, because they are the representatives of their companies. This is common sense, if you want to talk to a company you need to know whom to talk to. Putting their names out there is nothing different than finding it on the contact pages of their respectful sites. They are not targets, they are the contact point for their company. If you were to contact a group you did not agree with, wouldn't you do the same? And spread the information if you wanted more people to share your voice? Which encourages being polite and voicing your concerns in a reasonable way? Also this is not a spam campaign, this is a consumer uproar. There is nothing illegal about encouraging people to voice their opinions, this is what leaflet and grassroots campaign do all the time. GreenPeace hands out leaflets, we hand out links. Twitter Flooding Instructions.md is a NOT walkthrough for creating sockpuppet accounts. It is a guide to creating a twitter account for those who do not have one, or who do not want to associate their realname with an account because they are afraid of retribution. It is not about sockpuppets it is about protecting yourself through anonymity. The repository does not incite threats, nor violence, not spam. You are wrong (IMO) and trying to remove speech and content which offends you, we. or at least I, live in America where speech is free and debate and polite disagreements benefit everyone by allowing civil discourse to educate both parties on differing views. Where does the article violate the terms of service? Specific examples please. As someone who contributes to the repo I would like to know what needs to be edit-ed if it is illegal in some way. Thank you It violates this clause of the TOS: the Content is not defamatory, does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party; on pretty much any page you care to name. Just because you think it's right or justifiable doesn't make it so. I respectfully disagree. These links contain nothing but contact information to contact advertisers. I fail to see how this in any way violates the terms of service. A thorough examination of these links shows no evidence of threats; nor does it contain threats; nor does it incite violence; nor does it violate privacy or publicity rights. As far as I can tell, there are no threats. There are no incitements to violence. There are no violations of privacy (these are publicly available e-mail addresses) and, as such, I must refute the accusations from Mr. Reilly. -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Gitorious group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
[gitorious] Re: Reporting abuse
I apologize for deleting my first post, but I had the full thread, including an odd sort of formatting. As to the topic at hand, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Reilly. The links in question appear to be nothing more than notices on how to contact advertisers. This is in regards to some sort of boycott, correct? How is an e-mail campaign in any way breaching terms of service? A thorough examination of these links shows no evidence of threats; nor does it contain threats; nor does it incite violence; nor does it violate privacy or publicity rights. As far as I can tell, there are no threats. There are no incitements to violence. There are no violations of privacy (these are publicly available e-mail addresses) and, as such, I must refute the accusations from Mr. Reilly. These links contain no material that violate the terms of service. -- -- To post to this group, send email to gitorious@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Gitorious group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gitorious+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
