so, youre on this website, and you are asking that question ? what are you ? a joke ?...links in parent...
we have discussed a lot of things like these on this very website. the fact that you are asking that question.... well, i wont spend too much effort to explain. youre either a shill, or you actually dont read the website youre participating, or, you are a zealot. there can be no other explanation for expressing strong opinion in a subject you dont know shit about.
So I actually am asking because in my visits here and else were I have honestly not come across a compelling item of import large enough to warrant much of the claims being made that this was so important an action (the leaks). Hey, perhaps that's my own fault for missing them. Perhaps they are to come. Thus I actually DO accept with interest your offers. I really DO want to see what people are so worked up about.
A zeolot?...no, if I were a zeolot, I would not be asking for your point of view I would think. I'd be calling you names and giving my best spin, right....oh, wait
Not that I'm above that, but that was certainly not the case here. About the only thing I can cop to is feeding the parents own words back with an implied question-mark, which I think was warranted. One of the reasons is, if I choose the phrase, I'm perhaps building a strawman. The claim is of "real, real, shit. Subjective indeed, but can someone make a case for it?
I have strong opinions on the subject, but my interest is in looking at the other side of things,...ALways! That's why I asked sir. Not that I am wholey against a little whistleblowing and am hoping for openleaks success frankly.
Have I read everything on this or ANY site discussing this? Um, no actually I'm a pretty busy dude and I have my hands full. But I do try to stay informed and am asking for help doing so from those I disagree with. And I look forward to some condensed and skimable education here. Hell, that's what the site is BUILT to provide, isn't it?
As to your offerings, frankly those two links don't really change my opinion. Sorry. But let me make sure I've got this right. They are:
Link 1)A bit of bullying in a push for more stringent copyright and patent laws in an apparent attempt to riegn in internet piracy. Many sides to that one, but news? Magnitude?
2) The CIA kidnapped a guy that among other things they believed was planning to attack the US embassy in Rome and is apparently agreed to be a bad dude. Not particularly pretty, but the artical seems most upset with the WSJ. And more importantly I don't even see where this info is part of the leaking discussion. Seems completely off the point. Perhaps I'm just being a zeolot?
bottom line.
I remain interested in hearing from anyone who can educate me. But, how about toning it down with the belligerence.
Well, I wasn't there at the time, so I'll have to take folks word on it, but that's what the interweb tells me. It certainly made me laugh. And by all means apply as needed.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/286.html
What a rationalization. You simply can't obtain info under the guise of making that information free and then restrict it yourself. It's hypocrisy incarnate. ATT Wiretapping?? Could ya pick a more loaded example? And ATT didn't sell my info, Asange is.
I suggest Ranked Choice, or Instant Runoff voting. It undercuts the stranglehold the king-makers have had on the process. Imagine if your vote for who you really want to see running things didn't automatically backfire and end up as a defacto vote for who you absolutely _don't_ want to see with power? Imagine Netflix type stars next to each candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
I would further that point by saying that even when the is on Wikileaks itself, it is mostly focused on JA as a person. And either of this levels of focus misses what SHOULD be the focus if all this is actually worth it. The actual information is just tertiary right now to everyone but foreign governments and such who are no doubt lapping this up.
So they bent to government pressure...when exactly did PayPal sign on to be revolutionaries. The key to living free is letting people (and thus their businesses) go their own way. This is not an act of freedom no matter how high the ideal, rather an act of repression because they don't agree with someones politics. You can shout at them, you can call them names and boycott them all you want. that's freedome of speech, but the second you impede them from their own freedoms, you are out of bounds as they have broken no law. And until their are boots in the street, we are still a country of laws. The culprit is the US government. That is the valid target that I see in this context.
Point of order though. And again this is lack of clarity on my part. Cryptome has been around for a while on it's own already, not that I knew that 'til just now mind you;-). the WikiLeaks fork surely didn't lead to this particular mushroom being the point. The GP was making the point that further fungi popping up from all this manure might lead to legislation. And I would say that's getting a head of things a bit as we're here now and have no indication that such popping will take place even.
Then again the point is made that other molds do indeed exist in the garden. Perhaps the fungicide is in the works and will help solve the gridlock on capital hill./sarcasm
I find John Young's opinion of JA interesting indeed.
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant
What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
In this case, I would add #3 to the distinction. The leader of the project himself,
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve
your analysis is narrow and shallow in this. it assumes an ideal world.
I can't help it...I hear Niedermeier shouting "YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS AND WEAK! Now drop and give me 20!"
....Sorry:-) I will resist the urge to call you "Dougie".
Back to business.... I reject your premise. How do I assume an ideal world?? I see you go on to build a case for that imperfect world which I will certainly agree with to a great extent, but you fail to even introduce, let alone prove that I assume an idyllic world?
we are not in an ideal world. in an ideal world, a leaker of information as such would not be removed through any means possible,...
Damn right. On this I think we will agree. The arrest and the pressure by the government is BS. I can't see the broken law. But I could be mistaken too. Don't know. I just see no justification for bullying by the government.
when the spotlight is off of them. ie, stabbed in some back alley after a 'bar fight', ran over by a car in a roadside, or, just, die from drug overdose.
same goes for the outfit. it would be much more easier to remove all WikiLeaks presence on internet, if it was not on the spotlight.
I'm not following ya completely, But if OpenWiki works as it appear, it will all be available to whomever finds something worth publishing. But seriously, what so far has been released that would get someone killed? There's some wrong behaviour, but nothing to get someone assassinated as far as I see. Perhaps I'm naive. Tell me what bit of info the government would kill for here?
but see, now, visa, mc, PayPal is taking hell for what they have done, and PayPal has even come around and declared that it had done that because of political pressure. this was something they were denying before.
Do you have a link to quote PayPal as denying they where pressured? and what does it have to do with Assange? Totally different aspect of this thing IMO.
moreover remember previous leaks, remember previous scandals. how much of it remained on the agenda of news channels for enough time ? private interests have skillfully veered the public eye away from those issues by manufacturing shit, like american idol, britney spears drug scandals, this that.
Like?...
the process undertaken this time, has assured that the world would talk leaks, and nothing but leaks, and no pop star, tv show, sports match would overshadow it. the only way these can mildly be overshadowed now, if even, would be some major pop stars coming up gay, having sex with their own asses, or doing something 'beyond' the logic of what has public seen before. or, maybe a war, or a doomsday.
No question we're getting fed bullshit to keep us busy, but do clarify please,... what scandal has slipped on by? Help me see what you mean. And more importantly, what scandal has now come to light from these leaks that is worthy of our undivided attention? Not that there isn't one, but I don't know of it. I've heard a few things that I'm glad are out there now and that certainly stink. But which of the pearls deserves this great spotlight? If it is yet to come, why all this out on the floor now if not to show the great JA has pawned the gov't? The release as a whole is not remotely meeting the burden of being worth the damage as far as I see. Please if you want an argument of "what damage", hit my account and read a few posts. I've argued that one enough. I have argued mostly about the chill to our ability to negotiate and treat.
Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare yo
do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"?
I never said anything of the kind. You did. Nice strawman though. I fully expect there were plenty of people hurt by the pentagon papers. I full support that action.
I have to say first off that you sound like someone who is quite invested in this individual, so this may be futile, but here goes.
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve. It may make you feel good, and indeed there IS a great deal of good in having all this out there. I'm on record as saying that in the end, I'd prefer more openness to less by far. But preferable to both polls I believe there is a medium where this kind of information needs a more considered hand. Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare you sure you are not more into "deliciously fighting against it", and/or "burning down the house" than really being concerned for everyone involved here? Because this is deeply disturbing our (as in the government of the US working in our best interests collectively) ability to do the peoples business on the world stage. And if you can't see or acknowledge that this is damaging or that nothing is being done on that stage in your best interest then I wonder if you are not naive or jaded. "peoples lives??" How about our ability to negotiate on Nukes, or Iran, or Climate change...that has just been seriously compromised here.I'd say there are a few "people" involved too. Do you honestly believe simply removing names removes all the sensitivity?? Don't get someone in your family detained in North Korea or Iran anytime in the near future. Because those type of negotiations where crazy, complicated and obfuscation enough already without them being even more paranoid they are going to end up in a new york times article.
newsoutlets - hell how do I know. But why do you assume that would be the limit? Evidence?
fresh - Well to be clear, one can only speculate at this point about these guys their motives, and how they intend to operate, so take it as my opinion. That said, it is in my opinion refreshing to have a player enter the stage that appears to be more interested in getting the balance right; That seems more interested in taking into consideration more of the big picture and in not mucking about propriety and capitalization. Frankly the more I read, the more this individual seems to operate from a position of ego rather than service. And IF that is what is being acted upon and why these guys are leaving, then we may indeed end up with better service
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
I understand and actually agree at times. I think the pentagon papers where essential. But I also thing there needs to be a curtain for our government to get it's work done behind. And removing that curtain should serve a purpose other than to throw a bar into the gears. Where is the overriding and compelling information here? And even if we finally get to something that IS that important here, I'm betting that the whole mess didn't need to get crapped out on broadway. The time may indeed come where that needs to be the plan around here. Not see it as now myself. Sorry.
A spin off directly from wikileaks doesn't exactly seem to lead to the assumption that similar sites will "keep popping up like mushrooms." Talk to me when we have a third player from outside the wikileaks lineage.
an organization that has shown it upholds moral law
That is debatable, and indeed _is_ being hotly debated. IMO I would say they are hardly above reproach, let alone being placed on a moral pedestal.
they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
Do you have anything that might indicate that to be true? Any info on these individuals at all in fact? That doesn't even seem logical to me. If they did so, one would certainly expect to see their endeavor fall on it's face immediately following such a choice.
In fact, it might be more logical to ask if this action is informing us that Assage and wikileaks might not deserve the moral high ground and holiness some are anointing them with? After all if his own people are fed up enough to bail and try to do the same type of thing in a different way, and this during the highest publicity even for them so far, one might wonder what is happening internally that is so objectionable.
not following. I read it as ADDing a layer. I leak to OpenLeaks,.. they post,..."other" organizations post. The leaker is insulated by two layers of obfuscation now, much as these current leaks from Wikileaks actually as I understand it. Perhaps I'm missing something though.
No, these folks are unhappy with how he's gone about the whole thing and believe they can get it right. That is they will provide the same service but have a half a clue about the balance and responsibility that goes along with doing so. Frankly they are sounding like a breath of fresh air in a sh*t storm.
Well said...
tyranny [tir-uh-nee]
–noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
Who has the ability to exercise any checks on ANON beside the mob themselves? And from their missives and the clear high opinion of their own worth and righteousness, I think the word despot is applicable
good lord....they fight against 'stuff' (corps) that 'hurt' 'free press'.
???
It appears that nuance just _might_ be slipping past you. One could make a voluminous list of perfectly reasonable actions that 'hurt' 'free press' (loose usage of the term)...just as a minor for-instance, when a news paper prints only a selected list of letters to the editor, or a forum comment is moderated, then voices are metered. One really needs to parse if the action is reasonable and fair, not to mention legal.
moving beyond the parent, this is why this attack comes across as mindless and childish. There seems to be no capacity to assess the situation in a nuanced and complex way. Recognision that even accepting their point of view, it's the government applying the pressure here...it's more like a 5 year old who only sees "me hurt"=bad...."me mad" --> bad....throw tantrum! --> bad.
While I think you have a point, a DDoS 'attack' is not known as a DDoS 'protest' in any context. That groups motivation and the process itself are different beasts and thus it seems entirely appropriate to refer to the action as a DDoS 'attack'. Furthermore, can a protested not attack a policeman or vice-versa during a protest?
Slashdot Mirror
so, youre on this website, and you are asking that question ? what are you ? a joke ? ...links in parent...
we have discussed a lot of things like these on this very website. the fact that you are asking that question .... well, i wont spend too much effort to explain. youre either a shill, or you actually dont read the website youre participating, or, you are a zealot. there can be no other explanation for expressing strong opinion in a subject you dont know shit about.
So I actually am asking because in my visits here and else were I have honestly not come across a compelling item of import large enough to warrant much of the claims being made that this was so important an action (the leaks). Hey, perhaps that's my own fault for missing them. Perhaps they are to come. Thus I actually DO accept with interest your offers. I really DO want to see what people are so worked up about.
A zeolot?...no, if I were a zeolot, I would not be asking for your point of view I would think. I'd be calling you names and giving my best spin, right....oh, wait
Not that I'm above that, but that was certainly not the case here. About the only thing I can cop to is feeding the parents own words back with an implied question-mark, which I think was warranted. One of the reasons is, if I choose the phrase, I'm perhaps building a strawman. The claim is of "real, real, shit. Subjective indeed, but can someone make a case for it?
I have strong opinions on the subject, but my interest is in looking at the other side of things,...ALways! That's why I asked sir. Not that I am wholey against a little whistleblowing and am hoping for openleaks success frankly.
Have I read everything on this or ANY site discussing this? Um, no actually I'm a pretty busy dude and I have my hands full. But I do try to stay informed and am asking for help doing so from those I disagree with. And I look forward to some condensed and skimable education here. Hell, that's what the site is BUILT to provide, isn't it?
As to your offerings, frankly those two links don't really change my opinion. Sorry. But let me make sure I've got this right. They are:
Link 1)A bit of bullying in a push for more stringent copyright and patent laws in an apparent attempt to riegn in internet piracy. Many sides to that one, but news? Magnitude?
2) The CIA kidnapped a guy that among other things they believed was planning to attack the US embassy in Rome and is apparently agreed to be a bad dude. Not particularly pretty, but the artical seems most upset with the WSJ. And more importantly I don't even see where this info is part of the leaking discussion. Seems completely off the point. Perhaps I'm just being a zeolot?
bottom line.
I remain interested in hearing from anyone who can educate me. But, how about toning it down with the belligerence.
I confused, would not the posting of the materials Manning leaked pretty much already prove they where "working together"?
I would appreciate at least one example of what you consider some real, real shit.
Someone tip this fellow a leaf and perhaps he'll go away...
Well, I wasn't there at the time, so I'll have to take folks word on it, but that's what the interweb tells me. It certainly made me laugh. And by all means apply as needed. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/286.html
What a rationalization. You simply can't obtain info under the guise of making that information free and then restrict it yourself. It's hypocrisy incarnate. ATT Wiretapping?? Could ya pick a more loaded example? And ATT didn't sell my info, Asange is.
I suggest Ranked Choice, or Instant Runoff voting. It undercuts the stranglehold the king-makers have had on the process. Imagine if your vote for who you really want to see running things didn't automatically backfire and end up as a defacto vote for who you absolutely _don't_ want to see with power? Imagine Netflix type stars next to each candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
China and Iran making such accusations means exactly bupkis. As for Australia, I have no idea where to file that one.
It's really kinda disturbing how many people seem to think a DDoS attack is protected speech
I would further that point by saying that even when the is on Wikileaks itself, it is mostly focused on JA as a person. And either of this levels of focus misses what SHOULD be the focus if all this is actually worth it. The actual information is just tertiary right now to everyone but foreign governments and such who are no doubt lapping this up.
So they bent to government pressure...when exactly did PayPal sign on to be revolutionaries. The key to living free is letting people (and thus their businesses) go their own way. This is not an act of freedom no matter how high the ideal, rather an act of repression because they don't agree with someones politics. You can shout at them, you can call them names and boycott them all you want. that's freedome of speech, but the second you impede them from their own freedoms, you are out of bounds as they have broken no law. And until their are boots in the street, we are still a country of laws. The culprit is the US government. That is the valid target that I see in this context.
Ironic indeed...and very interesting.
Point of order though. And again this is lack of clarity on my part. Cryptome has been around for a while on it's own already, not that I knew that 'til just now mind you ;-). the WikiLeaks fork surely didn't lead to this particular mushroom being the point. The GP was making the point that further fungi popping up from all this manure might lead to legislation. And I would say that's getting a head of things a bit as we're here now and have no indication that such popping will take place even.
Then again the point is made that other molds do indeed exist in the garden. Perhaps the fungicide is in the works and will help solve the gridlock on capital hill. /sarcasm
I find John Young's opinion of JA interesting indeed.
yep...at the risk of being boring, I agree with that verbatim.
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
In this case, I would add #3 to the distinction. The leader of the project himself,
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve
your analysis is narrow and shallow in this. it assumes an ideal world.
I can't help it...I hear Niedermeier shouting "YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS AND WEAK! Now drop and give me 20!"
....Sorry :-) I will resist the urge to call you "Dougie".
Back to business.... I reject your premise. How do I assume an ideal world?? I see you go on to build a case for that imperfect world which I will certainly agree with to a great extent, but you fail to even introduce, let alone prove that I assume an idyllic world?
we are not in an ideal world. in an ideal world, a leaker of information as such would not be removed through any means possible,...
Damn right. On this I think we will agree. The arrest and the pressure by the government is BS. I can't see the broken law. But I could be mistaken too. Don't know. I just see no justification for bullying by the government.
when the spotlight is off of them. ie, stabbed in some back alley after a 'bar fight', ran over by a car in a roadside, or, just, die from drug overdose. same goes for the outfit. it would be much more easier to remove all WikiLeaks presence on internet, if it was not on the spotlight.
I'm not following ya completely, But if OpenWiki works as it appear, it will all be available to whomever finds something worth publishing. But seriously, what so far has been released that would get someone killed? There's some wrong behaviour, but nothing to get someone assassinated as far as I see. Perhaps I'm naive. Tell me what bit of info the government would kill for here?
but see, now, visa, mc, PayPal is taking hell for what they have done, and PayPal has even come around and declared that it had done that because of political pressure. this was something they were denying before.
Do you have a link to quote PayPal as denying they where pressured? and what does it have to do with Assange? Totally different aspect of this thing IMO.
moreover remember previous leaks, remember previous scandals. how much of it remained on the agenda of news channels for enough time ? private interests have skillfully veered the public eye away from those issues by manufacturing shit, like american idol, britney spears drug scandals, this that.
Like?...
the process undertaken this time, has assured that the world would talk leaks, and nothing but leaks, and no pop star, tv show, sports match would overshadow it. the only way these can mildly be overshadowed now, if even, would be some major pop stars coming up gay, having sex with their own asses, or doing something 'beyond' the logic of what has public seen before. or, maybe a war, or a doomsday.
No question we're getting fed bullshit to keep us busy, but do clarify please,... what scandal has slipped on by? Help me see what you mean. And more importantly, what scandal has now come to light from these leaks that is worthy of our undivided attention? Not that there isn't one, but I don't know of it. I've heard a few things that I'm glad are out there now and that certainly stink. But which of the pearls deserves this great spotlight? If it is yet to come, why all this out on the floor now if not to show the great JA has pawned the gov't? The release as a whole is not remotely meeting the burden of being worth the damage as far as I see. Please if you want an argument of "what damage", hit my account and read a few posts. I've argued that one enough. I have argued mostly about the chill to our ability to negotiate and treat.
Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare yo
Hey, it sounded clearer in my head...but then so do the voices O_o Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, and for the courtesy :-)
do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"?
I never said anything of the kind. You did. Nice strawman though. I fully expect there were plenty of people hurt by the pentagon papers. I full support that action.
I have to say first off that you sound like someone who is quite invested in this individual, so this may be futile, but here goes.
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
No, the responsibility of first recognizing that just simply dumping EVERYthing in metered doses appearing for all the world geared to keep the spotlight on Wikileaks, doesn't entirely serve. It may make you feel good, and indeed there IS a great deal of good in having all this out there. I'm on record as saying that in the end, I'd prefer more openness to less by far. But preferable to both polls I believe there is a medium where this kind of information needs a more considered hand. Call that censorship if you must, and I suppose it wouldn't be completely wrong, but I hare you sure you are not more into "deliciously fighting against it", and/or "burning down the house" than really being concerned for everyone involved here? Because this is deeply disturbing our (as in the government of the US working in our best interests collectively) ability to do the peoples business on the world stage. And if you can't see or acknowledge that this is damaging or that nothing is being done on that stage in your best interest then I wonder if you are not naive or jaded. "peoples lives??" How about our ability to negotiate on Nukes, or Iran, or Climate change...that has just been seriously compromised here.I'd say there are a few "people" involved too. Do you honestly believe simply removing names removes all the sensitivity?? Don't get someone in your family detained in North Korea or Iran anytime in the near future. Because those type of negotiations where crazy, complicated and obfuscation enough already without them being even more paranoid they are going to end up in a new york times article.
newsoutlets - hell how do I know. But why do you assume that would be the limit? Evidence?
fresh - Well to be clear, one can only speculate at this point about these guys their motives, and how they intend to operate, so take it as my opinion. That said, it is in my opinion refreshing to have a player enter the stage that appears to be more interested in getting the balance right; That seems more interested in taking into consideration more of the big picture and in not mucking about propriety and capitalization. Frankly the more I read, the more this individual seems to operate from a position of ego rather than service. And IF that is what is being acted upon and why these guys are leaving, then we may indeed end up with better service
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
I understand and actually agree at times. I think the pentagon papers where essential. But I also thing there needs to be a curtain for our government to get it's work done behind. And removing that curtain should serve a purpose other than to throw a bar into the gears. Where is the overriding and compelling information here? And even if we finally get to something that IS that important here, I'm betting that the whole mess didn't need to get crapped out on broadway. The time may indeed come where that needs to be the plan around here. Not see it as now myself. Sorry.
A spin off directly from wikileaks doesn't exactly seem to lead to the assumption that similar sites will "keep popping up like mushrooms." Talk to me when we have a third player from outside the wikileaks lineage.
an organization that has shown it upholds moral law
That is debatable, and indeed _is_ being hotly debated. IMO I would say they are hardly above reproach, let alone being placed on a moral pedestal.
they might just decide to leak you rather than it.
Do you have anything that might indicate that to be true? Any info on these individuals at all in fact? That doesn't even seem logical to me. If they did so, one would certainly expect to see their endeavor fall on it's face immediately following such a choice.
In fact, it might be more logical to ask if this action is informing us that Assage and wikileaks might not deserve the moral high ground and holiness some are anointing them with? After all if his own people are fed up enough to bail and try to do the same type of thing in a different way, and this during the highest publicity even for them so far, one might wonder what is happening internally that is so objectionable.
not following. I read it as ADDing a layer. I leak to OpenLeaks,.. they post,..."other" organizations post. The leaker is insulated by two layers of obfuscation now, much as these current leaks from Wikileaks actually as I understand it. Perhaps I'm missing something though.
No, these folks are unhappy with how he's gone about the whole thing and believe they can get it right. That is they will provide the same service but have a half a clue about the balance and responsibility that goes along with doing so. Frankly they are sounding like a breath of fresh air in a sh*t storm.
Well said... tyranny [tir-uh-nee] –noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Who has the ability to exercise any checks on ANON beside the mob themselves? And from their missives and the clear high opinion of their own worth and righteousness, I think the word despot is applicable
good lord....they fight against 'stuff' (corps) that 'hurt' 'free press'. ??? It appears that nuance just _might_ be slipping past you. One could make a voluminous list of perfectly reasonable actions that 'hurt' 'free press' (loose usage of the term)...just as a minor for-instance, when a news paper prints only a selected list of letters to the editor, or a forum comment is moderated, then voices are metered. One really needs to parse if the action is reasonable and fair, not to mention legal. moving beyond the parent, this is why this attack comes across as mindless and childish. There seems to be no capacity to assess the situation in a nuanced and complex way. Recognision that even accepting their point of view, it's the government applying the pressure here...it's more like a 5 year old who only sees "me hurt"=bad...."me mad" --> bad....throw tantrum! --> bad.
While I think you have a point, a DDoS 'attack' is not known as a DDoS 'protest' in any context. That groups motivation and the process itself are different beasts and thus it seems entirely appropriate to refer to the action as a DDoS 'attack'. Furthermore, can a protested not attack a policeman or vice-versa during a protest?