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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
