One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not.

Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet.

▲

croes 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Words can have bad consequences. We‘ll see what will happen to Banksy after Reuters published words.

▲

JasonADrury 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

47282847 2 days ago | parent [-]

Words can have influence and can come from a place of authority, which does carry responsibility. Words of a president are very different from words published on a random blog by some random person, and different yet again from words published by a newspaper. Some presidents words are opinion, the same words in different context are commands and not acting on them comes at a price.

Context matters. Which is why also different rules apply, and laws exist to guard these rules. DDoS is not an acceptable response in any jurisdiction, no matter what triggered them. We’re not in the Middle Ages, even if some behave like we are. Violence does not justify violence. Unjust action does not justify unjust responses.

▲

_osud a day ago | parent [-]

>DDoS is not an acceptable response in any jurisdiction

Who the fuck cares about what the law says? Seriously. The service archive.today offers is illegal in any case.

This is just a fundamentally bizarre context to be bringing up the law in.

	▲	47282847 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ah yes I can see the misunderstanding: I meant “acceptable” in a broader sense than just legally, but I can see how the use of “jurisdiction” implies law. It was not my intention to just reference the legality, but more in terms of what is considered “violence” by the society, where law is one level you can look at to get an idea. Then, again: one persons illegal actions do not warrant another persons illegal actions. That’s not how society works, and not how law works.