Jacob Appelbaum: “But he does good work.”
medium.com
medium.com
edit:
> Daily Dot has since raised significant questions for the people involved in this website.
Is it normal for "journalists" to publically announce on Twitter a set of questions they are sending to other people? Is that regular practice, in what other cases has this been done? As for the questions themselves
> #1 Out of the 12 women who initially signed the solidarity letter, have any expressed a desire to retract their names, given that these new witnesses have come forward?
Why would they? What on that site is incompatible with there being real victims? Take this for example
> we are observing – beyond the allegations, that are not for us to comment on specifically – an egregious character assassination is being played out with numerous defamations online and offline.
Are there witnesses for "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist"? Is there even anyone willing to seriously discuss the latter two? No? Then it's still a campaign of character assassination, day N and counting.
> #2 Your letter claims the “mainstream media” -- I presume that is a reference to the Daily Dot and Gizmodo -- is reporting on uncorroborated rumors. Could you specify how many witnesses to an incident your group believes is necessary to corroborate its occurrence?
Does he believe that time machines exist, does this "journalist" think that even a million witnesses coming forward will change the initial days of the blitz as they happened?
> #3 With regards to “Phoenix,” her allegations of sexual harassment have been corroborated by two witnesses -- Lee and Budington. Do you consider these witnesses, as your letter describes, as part of a “one-sided attack on [Appelbaum’s] character and work”?
Are you denying it's one sided? If not, has that journalist asked any hard questions about the plagiarism claims? Has anyone on HN, or elsewhere? As for the coordination, if it's true that TimeToDieJake tweet hours before the site went live, as it's claimed on cryptome, of course it's coordinated. And when a coordinated attack happens, and then some more stuff gets added that wasn't part of that, that doesn't mean a coordinated attack didn't happen.
> #4 If not, does your group plan to update its website (ourresponse.org) to include a statement regarding this substantiated claim of sexual harassment?
Again, why would they? The wording does absolutely account for that possibility.
> We do not claim to know what happened in precise situations that we were not present for, and we do not want to trivialise and minimise any pain that may have been caused.
But that's not enough, is it. Maybe someone can make a Chrome plugin that just appends (rapist, sociopath, plagarist) behind any mention of Appelbaum's name, on any website.
> #5 Sources say some of the people who signed the document were aware of allegations months ago and refuted them at that time as well. Is that accurate?
Finally, an actually significant question.
> #6 Can you say whose idea it was to draft a statement in support of Appelbaum?
Which brings me back to the question whether this kind of modus operandi is normal for journalists.
It's definitely "mentioned" even in this essay. At the end of the piece is:
> Jake also benefited greatly — and I can’t stress this enough — from journalists who did not check their facts, reporters who bought into his bullshit persecuted-hacker narrative, and blogs like Boing Boing who breathlessly starfucked his appropriated hacks and docs and reprehensible behavior into credibility.
How come there seems to be only interest in attacking Appelbaum, and keeping it so murky as to simply strip him of anything he ever did -- and no interest in restoring proper credit to the people he plagiarized from? You can see how that's kind of an elephant on the couch, right? Especially in light of all this posturing about never again looking the other way.
Effectively, this filters out anyone who minds bullshit mixed in with something serious, and doesn't just swallow packages as a whole. This is when sophistry, obedience, blinders and formalized abuse were officially accepted by some -- under the pretense of intelligence, free thought, not looking the other way, and being against abuse. By the time the thunder arrives a connection to this flash of lightning may not seem immediately obvious, but where something like this goes up, fallout must come down.
And I simply don't see how any of that would have been necessary to stand up against abuse and Appelbaum. It didn't have to be this campaign and it didn't all these red flags and fucked up bits. So even if it does help in a way in some respects for some people, as a whole, I find this incredibly immature, fraught with double standards and callousness, entitled and self-righteous -- while calling someone else a narcissist, as if next to narcissist, nothing can be shitty. When you're a victim, you must not be criticized, do not place any obligations yadda yadda. The courts are broken, this is not a mob, we're just sharing.
People say they're not wearing armbands, but then how come they're wearing armbands?
> bullshit persecuted-hacker narrative
Just watching his talks, is anyone honestly claiming he wasn't inconvenient? As a mere "pop hacker"? What talks do you like? Who do you think is playing in that league?
I demonstrated that it was mentioned, in the linked-to essay even. This suggests that you didn't read the essay, at least not fully or in detail.
Definitely not with the focus that you brought when criticizing a minor supporting document, nor with the high standards you want in response.
That demonstration was all I cared to do. You can move the goalposts, and demand "documentation for the super broad claims", but I'm not going there. Nor is this essay about that topic you want to discuss.
You can derail the conversation to something completely different than what Violet Blue described in the essay, but not only don't I care to follow you, but I have to wonder why you aren't discussing the points that are in the actual essay and want instead to switch topics away from the increasingly well attested cases of harassment allegedly done by Applebaum.
You write: "And I simply don't see how any of that would have been necessary to stand up against abuse and Appelbaum"
I see. So because you don't understand something doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. Is this based on your experience in reading through EEOC and court cases on how sexual harassment takes place in the workplace? Or in Title IX cases of how sexual harassment takes place in academic environments? Or in research reports in how sexual harassment occurs in other groups and organizations?
Or are you winging it based on your personal beliefs? Because that's what it seems like to me.
I like and am impressed by Snowden's talks.
That's fine, don't worry. It's not like anyone else is, either.
> Nor is this essay about that topic you want to discuss.
Yeah, I noticed that. Yet it serves to substantiate anything bad about Appelbaum in the minds of people, as demonstrated by nobody giving a genuine fuck about the plagiarism claims.
> I see. So because you don't understand something doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. Is this based on your experience in reading through EEOC and court cases on how sexual harassment takes place in the workplace? Or in Title IX cases of how sexual harassment takes place in academic environments?
Huh. Do any of these involving attack websites calling someone "rapist, plagiarist, sociopath", or a TimeToDieJake twitter account? If you're claiming any of these things would make a case for how this, and exactly this, could every be a good idea and not abusive in itself, simply cite the relevant bits, or make your own argument.
> Or are you winging it based on your personal beliefs? Because that's what it seems like to me.
Winging what, exactly? That someone fingering someone in their sleep or having sex with them in front of others agains their will doesn't constitute proof for plagiarism, or what?
You're "winging" addressing that head on first by declaring it out of scope, then also simply substracting it from the scope of what I criticized, which is the website and the whole package, then bluffing about documents in which you'll hardly find anything to support said package, and then fantasizing about "personal beliefs" of mine without even having the courtesy to name them. More of that creepy bullshit any HN discussion I posted in was riddled with. This isn't a mob, we're just mobbing.
So, what personal belief of mine would that be? That you shouldn't have double standards? That you shouldn't lie? That the first one to call anyone a bad person doesn't get to do whatever to them, while being completely beyond criticism? Anything else you have issue with and would move from the real of minimum requirements for being a fully fledged adult to "opinions" or "beliefs"?
If I think you are hyping up a minor complaint, and ignoring the major one, why should I care to investigate the minor complaint further?
In the HN context, there are no postings on the topic of Applebaum and plagiarism, and pretty much you are the only one to bring up the subject in the comments -- which you do an awful lot for something that effectively no one here seems to care about.
Since Violet Blue's essay was all about issues of boundaries related to sexual harassment, yes, ignoring the essay and switching to another topic is indeed "out of scope" on a comment page about that essay.
As for "personal belief", that is in the context of the sentence "And I simply don't see how..". You said right there it was a personal belief, so you shouldn't be surprised. My response was to question why anyone should put any weight on your opinion.
How about this - I believe you. There was no plagiarism. I will ignore all accusations in that regard, and only focus on the substantial number of complaints about sexual harassment and potential rape.