• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Imagine calling yourselves the ‘master race’ but forgetting to secure your own website — maybe try mastering to host WordPress before world domination,” Root wrote.

    Fucking gold.

  • dellish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    [WhiteDate had] A gender ratio that makes the Smurf village look like a feminist utopia

    Lol. I like this Martha Root, I wish her many more happy hacking years.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Did they get it wrong? Like Grindr being suddenly popular wherever the Republicans have a convention, maybe the ratio is far better for partner-seekers than it looks on the surface.

      • qaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I looked through the data and less than 1% was looking for a same-sex partner

  • FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    “They publicly delete all my websites while the audience rejoices. This is cyberterrorism,” the administrator wrote on X

    Lmao mald harder

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

      I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.

      • chaitae3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to influence a nation’s policy. This is not it.

        • Knightfox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

          At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            At some point the scales will not balance well and you need to be ok with that. There is no paradox of intolerance, for example, because tolerance is itself part of a social contract that bigots broke all on their own and once that’s out the window they do not get to reap the benefits of it. Social contracts aren’t easy math but they do make sense.

            This isn’t blowing up a furry website because someone thinks that’s weird. White supremacy is an incredibly dangerous ideology that has no place in whatever better society we claim to be aiming for. No one killed them for it, either. White supremacy built a website and a better person removed that website the same way one might paint over a swastika but leave the nice mural.

            • Knightfox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

              This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

              It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

              • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

                You can actually, self-defense to stop someone from committing a felony is legal in the US.

                • Knightfox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  In no court in the world would you be able to say you were acting in self-defense while acting from 6000 km away.

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Red Power Ranger: Red Power!

    Blue Power Ranger: Blue Power!

    White Power Ranger: Ahh no, fuck this shit… And who deleted my website?

  • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m thoroughly confused about WhiteDeal.

    A service where one contracts other white supremacists to do menial ad hoc jobs for a cost under the market price just seems so very antithetical to the whole “supremacy” thing.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it makes some sense. To be a white supremacist, you have to not think too hard. To be a libertarian and against minimum wage, you have to not think too hard.

      • Tharkys@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is part of our problem as a country. Everyone has to fit into a box. I am a Libertarian, but I also believe in a universal basic income along with a minimum wage. I believe that a fiscally responsible government can and should provide basic services to its constituency.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          While it is possible to self-identify as a libertarian and hold those beliefs, you have to understand that it disagrees with the general concepts of libertarianism as understood by other people.

          To put it another way, you sound a little bit like a vegan eating tuna.

          • Tharkys@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to agree with every single guiding principle of a party to be a part of it. Most of the country isn’t on the left or the right.

            Most of us are in the middle and only vote for one party or another out of FUD. I am done with that shit. I vote for the person I think is best for the job.

        • LePoisson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah … I know someone else already said this but you’re absolutely not a Libertarian. So, good news, you can throw that box out and realign your language.

          Also, I get that it’s a talking point but I think everyone believes in a fiscally responsible government. It’s just some weird right wing double think trick people say to imply the other side does not want that when in reality the Dems (if we’re framing this through an American lens) want fiscal responsibility just as much as any other party or persons.

          • Tharkys@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You don’t know anything about me other than the fact that I support two social programs. Who are you to say who or what I am?

            Yes, those programs are absolutely not something that the Libertarian party would ever endorse. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the same belief in smaller government, states rights, and fiscal responsibility. I belong to the Libertarian party, that doesn’t mean I have to BE the Libertarian party.

            • LePoisson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Ok … So you’re mad I said you’re not a Libertarian and now you’re just explaining how you’re not a Libertarian?

              • Tharkys@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Truthfully, it really doesn’t matter what you think of me or my views. My whole point is that the lines between parties is not nearly as cut and dry as people seem to believe.

                Just because someone is pro-choice doesn’t mean they aren’t a Republican. If they believe in universal healthcare, it doesn’t make them a Democrat.

                Thanks for the conversation.

  • oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Now we need a website that we can add to that doxxes them that we can browse like a Nazi Facebook site, but frozen in time.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Root also published the data allegedly scraped from WhiteDate online.

    The hacker said that they scraped WhiteDate’s public data and found “poor cybersecurity hygiene that would make even your grandma’s AOL account blush.” Root said that users’ images included precise geolocation metadata that “practically hands out home addresses with a side of awkward selfies.”

    “Imagine calling yourselves the ‘master race’ but forgetting to secure your own website — maybe try mastering to host WordPress before world domination,” Root wrote.

    • da_cow (she/her)@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      They literally just typed whitedate.net/download-all-users/ into the browser and the website willingly gave them a button to download all users.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I will call it censorship, how we know who is nazi whiteout allowing them express themselves ? Let them speak so we can know !

    • _g_be@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The irony of tolerating intolerant people to exist openly is that it actually erodes tolerance overall