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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] --- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
