Slashdot Mirror
Stolen Patreon User Data Dumped On Internet
After the personal data breach at crowd-funding site Patreon reported a few days ago, there's some worse news: the information isn't just in limbo any more; Patreon reported Saturday that the compromised information has been leaked in the form of a massive data dump. (The slightly good news is that no credit card information was leaked.)
https://patreon.thecthulhu.com/
That brand of Tequila never did anything for me after two or three shots.
This is going to be interesting as people start using the data to target their enemies. There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign. All those "private" messages between users and the people who funded them are now public.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The only reason my name is on the list is because I thought it was Ashley Madison.
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
Moooooooooo....
Mehhhhhh... says the sheeps.
It sure seems like EVERY web site will eventually get hacked. If the day comes that Slashdot's user database gets hacked and displayed for all to see, I'm sure I'll be embarrassed when my Anonymous Coward account becomes public information and subject to ridicule. I certainly don't look forward to that.
Troy Hunt recently posted an (IMHO) excellent blog entry about why leaked credit card info is much less of a problem than leakage of other personal data.
See: http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/09/relax-its-only-your-credit-card-near.html
Your command of logic is breathtaking!
Woah, woah, hold up a sec. Are you saying that Stephen King is married to Michelle Bachmann? His stories make so much sense, now.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
A quick experiment to demonstrate that you have not thought about this ... post your name and address here. Right now.
If you do not, then your question really was stupid.
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
A unethical journalist tried to blame the hack on Gamergate, despite the fact that the apparent hacker has made many anti-Gamergate statements. The journalist then went to a popular pro-Gamergate hub to make a show of doing the due diligence and research he should have done before publishing his inaccurate article, and got deservedly ripped to shreds in the comments.
The bottom line is the hacker appears to be third-party troll, so you should take any motivations he voices (pro- or anti- GG or SJW) with a boulder of salt.
Note that both pro-Gamergate and SJW content creators make money from Patreon, but IMO this hack has very little to do with the usual animosity between the two groups.
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
For those who didn't hear about it a week ago (there was strangely no Slashdot story), a recent event pusshing that narrative was the presentation of the "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls" report to (by?) an offshoot of the UN (UN Women). The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
http://time.com/4049106/un-cyb...
The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment. The report also argues that “cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,” suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse.
It's a such a blatant attempt to redefine criticism and disagreement as harassment and threats, to demonize free speech as a pretense to censorship.
The report also attacks video games by citing ridiculous sources (all at least a decade old) which say "Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokémon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games" and references Jack Thompson himself.
So it should come as no surprise that two of the invited the speakers (Quinn and Sarkeesian) were "SJWs" best known as prominent opponents of the Gamergate movement. Yep, Gamergate, the customer revolt demanding more ethical game journalism, whose criticism of and disagreement with the demonstrably unethical gaming press was mischaracterized as (you guessed it) "harrassment" and "threats" and widely censored in an attempt to protect the corrupt journalists, all because those journalists expressed the right politics.
Gamergate (and the FTC, responding to Gamergate pressure) succeeded in forcing many corrupt websites to update their ethics policies and start disclosing personal (and financial) relationships to the subjects of their articles, which is why you always see so many disingenuous and corrupt individuals shitting a brick over it. Two outlets that anti-Gamergate was notoriously unsuccessful at shutting down were tweets and youtube videos, which is why you saw Quinn issuing a false DMCA (against youtuber MundaneMatt) a year ago, and Sarkeesian whi
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian. The first video made him a fair chunk of cash, so he kept doing them. If the profit motive is taken away he will likely lose interest.
Your premise is faulty. He's made videos refuting creationists and promoting science for years, even though he "made little" money from them. The more likely explanation is that anti-progressivism videos were just a natural extension of his previous pro-skeptic content, especially after he saw "progressive" feminists try to infect atheism through Atheism+.
It's important because while he only does a bit of mild harassment, his videos and his cause act as a focal point for other idiots who do much worse.
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers.
Oh, this is fucking priceless. Got any evidence for that assertion? Here, I'll start (using a different "focal point"):
.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Gamergate exposed many undisclosed financial relationships between the gaming journalists and article subjects, forcing their employers to reform their ethics policies and add appropriate disclosures.
A significant chunk of those relationships were through Patreon, and at least one of the resulting ethics policy updates made direct reference to Patreon. Also note that many gaming journalists "responded" to Gamergate's successful push for greater ethics scrutiny by . . . hiding their Patreon donations by making them private.
I doubt the hack is good for either side of the "culture war", but anti-GG has a history of trying to hide where the money is coming from (and going to).
Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.
Sure do. How the reaction was widely reported in the mainstream tech news media is a completely different matter.
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
You sound confident in that claim, so you must have evidence of it. Do post some, because (as I said elsewhere in the thread) it's become routine for anti-Gamergate folks to portray exposure of corruption and mere disagreement with their opinions as "harrassment," and we know pro-GG folks get doxxed too (not sure about the ratio of pro-GG to anti-GG doxxing victims, and there's definitely no way to know the perpetrator ratio . . . though some do openly support doxxing, like Quinn and Harper and R Watson and Gawker's CEO, etc.). Here's an example of what I'm looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
.)
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Go ahead, post something half as damning (and conclusive) as that pathetic Sarkeesian "fanboy."
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
Wow, look at you, admitting up front you can't fulfill c) above. Tell me, why is the tech news sites' reporting of Gamergate "harassment" always so disconnected (in fact, usually the opposite) of what is indicated by the evidence? Must be lots of folks just like you working the field . . .
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
I'm not interested in censorship, merely preventing further harassment. Note that Thunderf00t, for example, has already been kicked off Twitter for his abuse. It's not about censoring his speech, it's about stopping the cycle of harassment that he perpetuates for financial gain. It's obvious he s motivated by money rather than ideology, so once the money goes away so will he.
The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
Your dismissal of mental health issues as somehow less real or serious than physical health issues is disgusting. If someone is beaten to death or commits suicide because of harassment, the result is the same. More over, if you look at what has happened to the speakers (Sarkeesian, Quinn) the violence they speak of was actually online mobs composed of individuals who fed off each other. Every time one of them did something it legitimized the cause a little more, making the next one a little bolder. Eventually there were credible death and rape threats, complete with home addresses.
By trying to claim that cyber-violence is less serious you create a situation where it can be ignored until it gets to the point where people are actually dying. I think most people would want intervention before then. Again, it's not a censorship or freedom of speech issue, it's a criminal one.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He assumed he = world. If he'd done research he would have learned that not everyone gets their money back, sometimes money is locked up for months, that the customer is creditcardless and can't pay bills until they get a new card, and that criminals can use their data to get new credit cards and much worse new bank loans and those won't be forgiven without a fight with the bank and debt collectors. Telling people not to worry about fraud is pretty stupid.
Everyone better fall in line and be nice to AmiMoJo, or him and his cyber feminazis will doxx and harass you lot off the internet, because SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS are always in the RIGHT!
Of course "cyber violence" is less serious! In case you haven't noticed we use screens and keyboards and not direct neural links. It is literally impossible to touch someone physically let kill someone!
It is idiotic sophistry to the nth degree. Even in the most censorous regions demanding charges for assault based off of words online would get you rightfully laughed out of court.
it's about stopping the cycle of harassment that he perpetuates for financial gain.
So, it is about silencing his speech because you don't agree with him (even though he quite clearly shows the truth in video evidence).
Yeah, we're not trying to censor anyone but the ones who don't agree with us, real generous there AmiMoJo.
It's obvious he s motivated by money rather than ideology, so once the money goes away so will he.
Yeah, I imagine if you are successful in getting his university to stop funding the research he works on, he won't be able to post online anymore as he will be living in a box. But in your world, lying about someone to get them to lose their jobs is perfectly acceptable, after all some of your heroes have done it previously to people on the gamergate side.
Your dismissal of mental health issues as somehow less real or serious than physical health issues is disgusting.
And your dismissal of the possibility that it happens to men too says a lot about you and your heroes. Making this about women only is SEXIST! So since you are against sexism, you should be pushing this to be not about gender and race but to be about how everyone treats everyone right?
Eventually there were credible death and rape threats, complete with home addresses.
Oh, you mean the death/rape threat that didn't send her running from her home because she posted it herself? Sarkeesian posted it herself, which is why there is no police investigation into the harassment.
http://www.returnofkings.com/4...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I find it funny you post a link to an XKCD where it states:
Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The Right to Free Speech means the government can't arrest you for what you say.
Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.
Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.
Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.
Cueball: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,
So, it doesn't shield you from criticism, which is exactly what your heroes have been trying to do, they recast all criticism as harassment to shield themselves from it. Because merely pointing out where their arguments are wrong is harassing and everyone who argues is sexist.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I will defend Thunderf00t's right to speak to the death, but what I won't defend is his incitement to mob violence. He has already been kicked off some platforms for things he said, and every video just fuels the fire. If he really cared about the issues he would take a very different tone, but instead he does what makes him the most money regardless of the consequences.
He can say what he likes, but others are free not to listen or give him a platform. If he breaks their terms of service, they can kick him off. I am free to point those ToS violations out to those services if I want to.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Thunderf00t's research is into biochemistry, it has nothing to do with is anti-feminism, and is of no interest to me. I'd love it if he concentrated on his research.
And your dismissal of the possibility that it happens to men too says a lot about you and your heroes.
I never said that. I'm well aware it happens to men, it has happened to me.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
, but instead he does what makes him the most money regardless of the consequences.
You mean like posting a video asking for money, then an hour later faking a rape threat?
http://www.returnofkings.com/4...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Can you cite a single example of Sarkeesian taking a specific, well reasoned and articulated criticism of her work (not her personally, her work) and claiming it was harassment? Just one.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Would she (I'll even settle for you) ever admit there are "well reasoned and articulated" criticisms of her work in existence? Just one. I've noticed a pretty distinct trend of complete silence on any critiques and seemingly an attempt to frame it as the only opposition is in the form of harassment. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd love for you to correct me. Will you label me as anything other than a "gamergater" for simply asking the question?
Thunderfoot isn't particularly nice to her but he really doesn't have to be. He makes fun of her- so what? People make fun of all kinds of things on the Internet. You complain about his "memes" but he's trying to be entertaining and using humour.
You complain about him targeting harassment at Sarkeesian but repeat again and again how there is a "campaign" to get him "defunded". The fact that you seem completely oblivious to the connotations of this could probably make a good psychology case study.
Would she (I'll even settle for you) ever admit there are "well reasoned and articulated" criticisms of her work in existence?
It might help if you gave an example.