I feel like I am missing context here. I don’t understand why clicking a phishing link leads to getting beaten by cops and charged with a made up offense.
They were already targeted. The phish click gave the powers that be their IP. Search through the ISP or the VPN provider who’s the client and their address. Make up a false report, give a heads up to the police officer to rough up the target.
Literally don’t click strange links through text or email. Source is a friend who did some shit in Afghanistan.
“click here to sign a petition for wrongthink”
so…capitalism is the system who raids your house for crimethink and spies everything you do?
Damn, this is horrible 😨
Looks like westerners are feeling the full experience of what we typically receive during a fascist/neoliberal gov’t in the Global South. I just hope that you all don’t let this violence become the new normal.
Imagine getting a full address from a link… Literally the 90s internet scareware. I cannot express enough how shit his opsec is.
I mean, literally only state actors can correlate an IP address to a physical address because they need to ask the ISP. He probably had shit opsec for what he was doing (going against the state) and should’ve used Tor, but it’s very uncommon to get a full address from a link
Anyone still using Twitter is Nazi collaborator; they should expect things like this to happen.
Consumer activism and absenteeism will get you nowhere. Same argument applies to Meta platforms, YouTube, Reddit and whatnot. Merely existing socially in capitalist platforms does not equate to supporting the ideology of those platforms. There are a myriad reasons why one would remain on twitter despite the current state of the platform (academia, for exampl, still relies a lot on it), and this high minded moralism won’t change that.
If you have the time could you expand on the ways academia depends on Twitter? I’m asking genuinely because the ‘artist engagement’ angle never seemed very convincing to me, but I had never heard of how academia is linked into it.
Twitter was adopted pretty quickly by academics all over the world as a good platform to effortlessly share articles, pre-prints and small results and discussions, as it was much better than Facebook or old Reddit for that. After years being a hub they’re now a captive audience.
It’s become a good habit for many scientists to include a “check twitter” task on their routine to stay up to date on the goings on of the scientific community. And back when I used it there were lots of cool trends for science communication whose history would be lost on migration, like the #ArachnoThreads listing cool facts about specific spider genera.
Had no idea. Now that you’ve described it makes a lot of sense, especially because science and academia are always the more active branches of federated social media. Federated social media is almost always trying to imitate the preexisting communities that dominate Twitter, etc. Thanks for the time.
So, to argue against using a platform supported by Nazis is “high minded moralism”? Convenience and mass usage is an excuse for that support? You are correct in the use of Meta, Alphabet, Reddit, and Microsoft products are the same.
So, to argue against using a platform supported by Nazis is “high minded moralism”?
Yes. Not much to add here, it’s a moral argument not a practical one. And trying to make it a practical argument will yield very poor results.
Convenience and mass usage is an excuse for that support?
Usage does not equate to support, most people aren’t even paid users. Besides that, it’s not just a matter of convenience, it’s often a necessity. Try being a Latam journalist without an Instagram, a tech workers wiwithout linkedin, a communicator without YouTube. Absenteeism’s only effect is giving you a warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority. For serious militants, if you want to have an effect on society you will unfortunately have to engage with it.
Besides, this discussion started from arguing that a guy being beaten up by the police due to being doxxed by either Zionists or Banderites is somehow justified because he… Uses twitter? If you can’t see the frankly absurd implications of that, imagine if the same happened to Richard Wolff, Vijay Prashad or any other communist who has an account there. Or any other random person with an audience, in fact. Imagine if Jenny Nicholson, NileRed or any other non-left non-politics influencer randomly decided to oppose Zionism and Banderites online and got physically attacked, since you agree YouTube is just as bad. Not even getting into MS Windows users. Are they all Nazi collaborators?
I truly hope you simply haven’t thought this through. Sorry to tell you, but hiding away in a commie forum with 200 users and belittling anybody out of it is not praxis.
The government doing policr state shit is what should be discussed here, not petty social media site drama. You contribute way more to nazi fascism by paying taxes in the west than by tweeting.
Don’t victim blame.
Anyone still using Twitter cannot claim victimhood. They know it is owned by a Nazi and its algorithms are created by Nazis. You might as well join Truth Social and drive a cybertruck.
This type of logic taken to its conclusion is utterly absurd. You could as well say: “Anyone living in the US cannot claim victimhood. They know it is owned by Nazis and its governance is created by Nazis.” Which hopefully illustrates how stupid it sounds, but I can explain further if need be. Shoveling victim blaming into the garbage is worth the energy.
It’s also just distracting and completely the wrong focus here. How can you read this story and go “the takeaway here is that people deserve what they get for using Twitter” and not “jesus fucking christ, they came and beat the shit out of someone at their home over what they post.”
Opting out of using twitter is a whole lot easier to do than moving to a different country, try again
It’s really hard to see this as different from concern trolling at this point.
Get your eyes checked
Personally, I read it, and thought it was a LLM story. I searched and could not find verification.
So first it’s victim blaming, now it didn’t happen? I think you got the narcissist’s prayer confused, you’re doing it in reverse order.
I’m willing to accept links to said verification. I stated my cursory search yielded nada.
Well right now OP is in the best position to do that and I don’t know if they are reading the replies. I have tried to ask them stuff directly before and not gotten a response. You could try pinging their username and ask for source.
Generally, I’m supportive of requesting sources and all. It’s just a really bad look to start out victim blaming and then go to denial when that fails.
Leaving the US is a little bit harder than leaving Xitter imo
Technically correct, but misses the point. It’s the stuff of: “If you haven’t thrown out your cellphone because of its links to capitalist abuse, you deserve to suffer” or something. The Nib was making fun of this years ago, with its comic about “we should improve society somewhat”, “yet you participate in society, curious”. Expecting individuals to voluntarily find their way to the right decisions or else they deserve to suffer has more in common with liberalism than marxism-leninism. Treating individuals as moral failures (and therefore deserving of suffering) because they haven’t rejected every aspect of the society they live in, in order to fight against it, is asinine.
This isn’t to take it to another extreme and be in support of having no standards at all for how people behave or who we choose to organize with (a context where this matters a lot more). It’s normal to have lines drawn in the sand. But over being on Twitter? For god’s sake, they’re an internet poster, not a war criminal, and you aren’t the same as a Nazi simply by posting on a platform that got taken over by one. That’s why I made the comparison to living in the US. It’s one of the most grotesque empires in human history, but that doesn’t mean everyone who lives there is guilty by proxy with full awareness, complicity, and consent to its crimes. Guilt by proxy is the kind of stuff people use to (flimsily) justify genocide, not the kind of reasoning we need to be getting anywhere near. A person who lives with an abusive spouse is not the same as the abusive spouse. We need to be focused more on solutions than on ivory tower moralizing that conveniently leaves out the ways our own behaviors and associations are linked to the global system of exploitation.
Getting rid of your cellphone is also harder than leaving Xitter. Xitter isn’t a vital part of society or really that important, it’s literally just a place to waste time. It’s actually a really easy and simple thing to do and should be encouraged.
I don’t know if scolding individuals for their behavior is effective as a general strategy, I just mean to point out that it’s categorically different to criticize someone for using Xitter than to criticize them for owning a cell phone or living in the US.
Twitter, whether we like it or not, is one of the most broadly used social media platforms there is, with some of the furthest reach. Calling it “just a place to waste time” is an ignorant take on it that misses how these platforms become part of communication, career, alerts, friendships, agitprop. For some people, it is “just a place to waste time.” For some, it is much more.
It is technically correct that there are degrees of how “easy” these examples of things are to “quit”, but as I said before, litigating over which is generally easier to “quit” is missing the point. It’s also something that can be greatly influenced by background/circumstances. The US is easy to leave if you’re wealthy, but the experience is going to be very different if you’re poor. In fact, most things are easy to selectively “quit” if you’re wealthy. It’s the poor people who have to look worse for not uprooting parts of their life on a whim, while well-off people are more easily able to make choices that look conscientious on paper due to the padding they have.
We could make a chart that tries to go over easiest to hardest things to quit/leave, but it would be misleading if it didn’t take into account the reasons any given person hasn’t done it and the weight the given thing carries in their life. It would also be rather pointless in this context if we weren’t also going over value of quitting. Performative morality isn’t going to help the cause and we can’t assume that leaving a thing to the fascists is automatically good because fascists are currently in charge of it. That reasoning taken to its conclusion leads to giving up. There are contexts boycotts may make a difference, if they’re organized, but I don’t see how people randomly choosing to not do a thing when they get around to it is going to apply consistent pressure with vocal demands.
deleted by creator
You may as well pay taxes that fund fascist death squads
Why did you reply to this one?
I wouldn’t go that far but it is interesting to see the lengths people go to in order to justify staying there while knowing exactly what it is. You have to pay taxes but you don’t have to be on Twitter.
I tend to think those who got the knickers in a twist are those who are still using Twitter and are trying to justify it in their own minds. What’s worse, they are on Lemmy, so know there are federated alternatives.
