[ImPostingOnHN]

> When you are pointed out that you’re hurting someone in some respect that you weren’t intentional about, you should stop, sit down, and reconsider everything in that respect.

> You may end up deciding to continue inflicting harm, intentionally so this time---that is a perfectly valid course to take. But you cannot anymore remain unintentional about it.

To be clear, are you talking about the harm of commanding a botnet (which includes you and me) to attack an investigative journalist for investigatively journaling?

[ThoAppelsin]

It seems like a non-question, but I’ll bite: No. I’m talking about the harm the investigative journalist is doing to the anonymous operator of archive.today by compromising their anonymity and promoting this. You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”. You can say “I was just curious” (which is “I was unaware” in disguise), but now you are pointed out and are aware, so you must just decide.

And the decision seems to be intentionally do the harm and be insincere about it. Personally, my primary annoyance is with the latter, that they are being insincere about it.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You can’t “investigatively journal” to someone’s detriment and say “I was just doing my job ;)”.

That description seems to encompass most useful investigative journalism, so I'm not sure it is a useful distinction that an investigation is unpalatable to someone (usually the investigatee).

Suppose we ignore that for a moment, though: it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist, nor does it justify surreptitiously using my computer as part of a botnet to do so.

[ThoAppelsin]

> it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist

1. Person A hits Person B.

2. Person B hits Person A in return.

Is it ok that Person B hit Person A? I don’t know. I don’t think so. People would unanimously agree, however, that Person A making the first hit makes Person B’s hit more understandable, and that Person A is relatively more to blame here.

So, yeah, I agree: the attack from archivist isn’t justified by the attack from the journalist. It is, however, made more understandable by it.

As for what counts as attack: I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”. It’s more like a protest. And I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part in that effortless protest against the actor that is being hostile against the service’s continued operation.

Sadly, it backlashed quite a bit, it appears. People took the words “DDoS” and “botnet” as something much more serious than what they actually entail in this situation, probably because they sound very obscure and vile.

[ImPostingOnHN]

>> it does not justify attacking the investigative journalist

> 1. Person A hits Person B.

> 2. Person B hits Person A in return.

> Is it ok that Person B hit Person A?

More like

1. Investigative journalist investigates interesting and valid story about widely-used website.

2. Person B running the website hits investigative journalist.

3. Person B also hits me and thousands of others by nonconsentually recruiting my computer into a botnet.

> I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call DDoS to a blog an “attack”.

I don't think so, so it sounds like between us two, there's no consensus either way. Law enforcement and the courts are more authoritative than both of us, though, and they don't think so, either.

> I think the users of the service would in general not mind taking part

Hi, user of the service here. I mind, and I think most users would mind their computer being recruited into a botnet that attacks journalists to settle personal vendettas, too.