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.)
There is already an effort to get people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad defunded, and this is bound to help the campaign.
^^^^^THIS.
Yes, beware the wrath of the self-righteous Social Justice Warriors. To them the ends do justify the means, and simply disagreeing with them puts you on their enemies list.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
There is a very good reason that for a long time, charity was considered best when it was anonymous. I don't mean anonymous to the world but known between the benefactor and the recipient, but truly anonymous where the recipient did not know who the benefactor was. It protected the benefactor because no one knew who the benefactor was, and to a degree it protected the recipient because the recipient was not placed in a position of having to publicly defer or otherwise kowtow to the benefactor if they should encounter each other in public.
It might make sense for this to be considered in the future.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian.
What Thunderf00t "spouted" about Anita Sarkeesian was anything but "bullshit". I checked a lot of the stuff in his videos on Anita Sarkeesian and the fact is that pretty much everything he said checked out. And it's easy to see it why it checks out because all he did was take clips of her speaking and played them verbatim.
You can do the same and you'll likely come to the same conclusion if you aren't already committed to a particular point of view.
Remember, Anita Sarkeesian is the one who said "EVERYTHING is sexist, EVERYTHING is racist, EVERYTHING is homophobic, and you have to point it all out." That statement of hers is simply not true by ANY stretch of the imagination. Seriously, give me a fuckin' break. Everything is NOT sexist, racist, and homophobic and only a demagogue would say shit like that.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers. Does that mean they are SJWs? That term seems rather ill defined.
SJW just means anyone who cares about anything that the person using the term SJW thinks is stupid, or bad, or wrong. If you have the gall to care, even though they are apathetic fuckheads, then you're a SJW. They have to deprecate you because they know they're shitbags and you're making them feel like what they are. And they will happily lump people with sensible ideas in with assholes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
she undoubtedly cherry picks her examples. She develops a thesis based on her analysis of the industry, then makes a video about her thesis and chooses examples to illustrate it. This is what any biographer or historian or literary critic does. Ever seen PBS?
The big question is, so what? Nobody goes nuclear when Roger Ebert releases a review. Why is it such a big deal?
Go to Thunderf00t's YouTube channel and look at the view counters on his videos. The anti-feminist ones are by far the most popular. Every time he makes one he gets a big pay day from YouTube and new Patreon subscribers. They are all terrible, far below even his usual low standards, but he keeps crapping them out because they pay.
He makes a living out of being permanently offended and angry. An SJW, I guess.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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 . . .