@x3r0x

It is of course obvious that chaotic evil and chaotic good are separated by a fine line.

People applaud this, some race purist website who wished to isolate himself from "brown people" gets destroyed because the vigilantes won't allow it.

But where do you draw the line on who gets to exist and who doesn't?

Your existence will soon rely on if a hacker agrees with you or not.

One wrong word, deleted, one wrong thought, purged.

And everybody claps like a happy seal when it happens?

@Dantevortex

With all due respect, this has been happening for a very long time.

We've seen hackers of all persuasions hacking for decades now. Silencing people, scraping data, shutting down servers.

Sometimes they do it for what some might consider good, sometimes for what those same people might consider evil.

But there's a big difference between a hack against a website pushing harmful ideology and someone saying a bad word or publishing a bad thought.

@timlah

These racists having a dating site allowing only the people of their selected race is very racist. I agree.

But which law are they breaking?
They're a private establishment who hate non white people. It's not against the law.

The thing is, we shouldn't applaud vigilantism.

This hacker is a criminal. We shouldn't celebrate whenever a criminal is a successful at being a criminal.

If making websites that exclude people should be banned, we have to ban a LOT of websites.

@Dantevortex @timlah

> complains about existence being conditional unless someone approves of you

>> asks what law your breaking

lmfao laws entire thing is deciding who does and doesn't get to exist, only your biggest issue isn't some hacker coming along and pwning your site, its armed guys with guns turning up and abducting you and throwing you into a torture chamber for 20 years or some shit;

(and then it is applauded and legitimized, and all that happens to those victimized by it, are dismissed as they 'deserve it', like your saying, but its fine becuase they called them a 'criminal' first and the ones doing it are random 'law enforcement' instead of a random hacker; right..?)

> The thing is, we shouldn't applaud vigilantism.

why not? it's harm that is the government wouldnt give a shit about; they'd say some crap about it being 'free speech' .. and is resolved in a much better than it would be if the 'law' did it.

> We shouldn't celebrate criminals

see thats the thing; criminals dont exist <3