Slashdot Mirror
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!'"
Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?
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
Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.
s -selling-solar.html
It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
--
Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
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.
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.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
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!
Are you going to out-vote Exxon with your wallet?
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...
On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?
Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.
It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
No, but if you make Exxon buy each and every ISP out there you can then use your very effective anti-monopoly legislation...
No. wait...
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
See, that's the funny part.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's purely conjecture at this point.
"Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
from TheYesMen.org."
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
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.
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.