zlacker

Fortunately, given the purported scope of the hack, it seems we'll be able to actually quantify that. How many of the websites weren't hosting violent or extremist content? If this is real, we should be able to get an exact percentage.

>>heyits+(OP)
I sure hope people don't jump to conclusions re what is violent or extremist.

>>dreadl+h9
People jump to conclusions? On the internet? No, I don't think that likely

>>pletsc+v9
Someone will always be quick to point out they are wrong.

>>6510+Am
On the internet? No way! There is only civilized discord around with people making rational arguments!

>>6510+Am
A bullet list of the logical fallacies will assure the truth will prevail.

>>heyits+(OP)
Twitter hosts violent and extremist contents. Now please give me jack Dorseys address, phone number, and social security card so we can exact justice /s

That there are people on this forum advocating for vigilantism is frightening. We are quickly approaching the point of lawlessness as a society.

>>heyits+(OP)
I would assume given any hosting provider, that most content would not be deemed "violent" or "extremist". But of course, it depends on your interpretation.

For example, some people consider radical servers from the anarchist scene to be hosting violent/extremist material, while i personally consider governments and big corporations to be pretty violent and extremist themselves in how they ruthlessly dominate the world.

Actions and speech are not neutral. It's all a matter of (political) perspective.

>>iammis+4p
There you go. Vigilantism is OK only if it doesn’t affect them. But when it does, the outrage is everywhere. To them, it seems that unauthorised access and leaking personal information even if innocents are involved is suddenly OK then?

That activity seems very extreme doesn't it over just reporting directly to the authorities.

This is best left to the authorities to deal with such issues rather than resorting to such extreme and illegal activities, no matter the cost or innocents affected.

>>southe+0A
Epik is not just “any” hosting provider. In fact, there’s no reason to use them unless you fall into the “unhostable” category elsewhere.

Their infra, peering and prices are way worse than pretty much everyone else.

>>iammis+4p
well, we do have u.s. state governments putting vigilantism into law, and making sure the victims of this vigilantism pay the legal bills of the vigilantes, so at this point, i’m not sure we can clutch our pearls over something which after all these years has become routine (i.e., leaks)

>>qetern+nI
> In fact, there’s no reason to use them unless you fall into the “unhostable” category elsewhere.

False. Even if your present day content is not currently censorable but you expect it will be censorable one day as cultural norms shift or speech authoritarians gain power, it is wise to put it somewhere that is censorship resistant, Epik or otherwise.