Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 469065
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
Elv13,
"But at the same time, like it or not, they do defend peoples interest against abusive corporate power"
WereCatf,
"By blocking legitimate users from accessing services they're paying for? Nope, that logic doesn't fly."
Well, in a Martin Luther King type of way, it actually does make some sense.
(Please don't misinterpret this comment as suggesting that taking arms against Sony has the same merit as fighting racism.)
Hypothetically, MLK probably would condone DOS attacks too if they helped his cause.
It's true a DOS blocks "legitimate users", just like MLK's human roadblocks, standins, sitins, etc interfere with public activities. For him, it was a way to send a message, peacefully. He could not fight the oppressors directly, he was powerless that way. He fought by forcing others to get involved.
Edited 2011-04-05 05:40 UTC