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
