Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men

tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"

Comments

*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[IdleTime]

This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[hotdiggitydawg]

This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America.... So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Registered Coward v2]

his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Khaed]

This shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.

Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to out-vote Exxon with your wallet?

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Belacgod]

The fact that other countries also suck doesn't make us suck less. Censorship of this nature is a negative-sum game, not a zero-sum one.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Khaed]

Right, but Piss Christ was paid for with tax payer money. the Danish cartoons were not. Say what you want, but don't expect the government to pay you for it.

Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on. Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.

I'm not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find examples of worse happening in Europe.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[TapeCutter]

" I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own."

So a "whites only" sign on the door is ok?

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[Khaed]

Absolutely.

Then the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being associated with racism.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[LGagnon]

Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power

[LGagnon]

This isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of corporations, which really is only that bad in America.

Blame game.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?

Cue all the apologists

[rkcallaghan]

Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

(Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

~Rebecca

Re:Cue all the apologists

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

No, it's not censorship when big business does it. It's censorship when big businesses use laws created and enforced by the government to do it. Anything without government involvement is not censorship. If Exxon managed to persuade their ISP to take the site down just by asking nicely, then this isn't censorship, just a shitty ISP. If Exxon threatened the ISP with a lawsuit, it is censorship. The latter is far more likely, but you don't have to be an apologist to distinguish between abuse of state power and agreements between private individuals.

Re:Cue all the apologists

[metamatic]

Anything without government involvement is not censorship.

That may be your own weird little definition of the word, but if you check a reputable dictionary, you'll find that "censorship" does not require that the censoring be performed by a government entity.

Re:News For Nerds How??!!

[maynard]

Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!

150,000 deaths per year

[timmarhy]

That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.

Re:150,000 deaths per year

[transami]

"Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created."

That's completely false. ExxonMobil and the other Gas/Oil companies are directly in league with the automobile companies. Their chairmen serve on each other boards. They cooperate in the "buying-up" of alternative energy tech, and soaking up federal tax dollars via grant monies and tax breaks. Ie. They do everything they can to perpetuate demand for their product.

Your rational on the use of illicit drugs is also mis-oriented. All of the crime and much of the suffering comes not from the drugs, but from unconscionable laws. These laws hike prices, which empower suppliers, crowd prisons, encourage youth, corrupt law agencies and severely depress accessibility to rehabilitation.

BTW, I don't own a car --refuse to own a petrol powered car, and don't live in a city.

Re:150,000 deaths per year

[jollyreaper]

That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous. You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members? Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the Flat Earth Society.

You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.

When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored .1% find themselves on the other side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.

I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."

Nice headline, guys!

[SEE]

First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

Third, there was no hacking involved.

You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.

Re:Nice headline, guys!

[SEE]

Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?

because the retaliation was to disconnect them

[putch]

i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.

nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.

that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.

Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them

[MSTCrow5429]

nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying.

That's purely conjecture at this point.

Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them

[The_Wilschon]

So, kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the channel op isn't "one of us".

Re:News For Nerds How??!!

[Oligonicella]

If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.

I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".

Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.

Re:Where are the facts

[canuck57]

Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...

Parody it is.

[mdsolar]

In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html, I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.
--
Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:They Have A Right

[heinousjay]

Apparently "The People" in your post only refers to people who don't own shares in corporations. Thanks for declaring me (and millions of others) non-entities.

Re:News For Nerds How??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those stories are sufficiently covered in other Media. If you want to read about those stories you can go there. Not all news stories need be covered in all types of media.

*sigh* Cults have too much power

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries!"

Scientology.

Re:Legal matters

[LehiNephi]

Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:

• Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
• Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
• Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades, Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F (which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's causing the 150k deaths per year.

Re:News For Nerds How??!!

[the_womble]

I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot,

Frankly, the UK attacks are not really newsworthy. No one killed, no real threat to anyone other than the bombers.

These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:nature of satire

[Tom]

I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. You start your argument with a wrong assumption.

Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.