SEO warring against the Texas abortion snitch site | Hacker News Reader

SEO warring against the Texas abortion snitch site

prolifewhistleblower.net

36 pointsnoduerme28 comments

The owner began with this reddit post... https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/pafq25/i_a...

The real site is offline as of this writing (deplatformed by Godaddy). The .net site is, interestingly, the second result on DDG, but nowhere in the first few pages of Google results (for me, anyway).

What's the current legal precedence on intentionally "misusing" someone's name like this? I know you can be forced to stop using things like McDonalds.tv, so how would this kind of use hold up?

If it's not impersonation, it's not misusing, as far as I know.

This is not a fair-use, news, satire kind of a thing. Its sole purpose by existing is to make it so people are not going to the "actual" site.

I am quite amused by the direction and attempt to harass, but I'm concerned it will be short lived. Shows how not smart these people are though. Any one of us would have known to register all of the TLDs plus potentially any common misspellings etc to protect the brand.

Kinda like the "crisis pregnancy centers" put up by anti-abortion activists to ensnare women who think they're going for an abortion? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/16/georgia-abor...

They're not using someone's name to do this though, so I don't get how you're making a connection.

Yes, they are intentionally deceiving, but that's not the samething

FWIW, the .net site was middle of the first page for me on Google.

This is a prime example how fighting something can simply give it more eyeballs. I just heard about this through HN. Maybe we can just ignore people who don’t agree with us…

Core societal issues shouldn’t be hand waved away like a disagreement over a referee call.

Not on this one. This one literally has people being able to turn people in for something like driving someone to a medical procedure under the guise of "aiding and abetting".

This is not a movie that offends a religious group that gets riled up and tells people to not watch it which only encourages people to watch it. These are state laws that affect everyone in the state.

Ignoring horendous laws is not the answer. They need to be discussed, and then have people get motivated to have them changed.

It's a privilege to be able to ignore people who don't agree with you, one that people who can get pregnant in Texas don't have atm.

I suppose this is why almost none of the news articles I found about the .com site being deplatformed actually mentioned its name or URL. I personally believe that kind of information control ("we're not going to tell you the site's name") is fine for any individual news organization, or any given hosting company or message board moderator to make. But when it seems to be a widely agreed-upon decision to censor something, I think it's corrosive to free speech and it lowers trust in journalism. I don't think "we" trying to keep the visibility of a site low is actually going to stop people who want to snitch on their neighbors from doing so; and most people going to that site are probably going as if to a freak show, to look at a donkey with two heads. It's worth noting that the .net site's ranking probably has a lot to do with the fact that no mainstream press is willing to link to the .com site. On principle, I think the press should treat adults as adults, not a mob to be managed and lied to; that's exactly why so many people now distrust basic public health information. They see the source as lying and suppressing information (and they're not entirely wrong). But given the idiocies that go viral these days I can see why editorial boards make the decisions they do.

Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family. The .net and .com site should both be free to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

>Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family.

Except for the people in favor of it. They are probably giddy with anticipation about being able to fill it out for the first time. Not sure where you live, but in Texas, this is being cheered by those in favor. --Under his eye

Be that as it may, those people are not learning about it from Gizmodo or from the .net site. Likely the fact that Godaddy deplatformed it gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs they could ever hope for. And that's what led to the media attention. But it's hubris for the press to think they can suppress basic facts and make them go away; it just looks dishonest, propagandistic, and as if they're all going off the same memo. You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist.

>gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs

Where are you from? In Texas, it's all in the news right now. The people that are for this new law are singing praises. This isn't something being swept under the rug hoping nobody notices it. They are advertising it.

>Likely the fact that Godaddy

It's more likely the people in favor of this wouldn't know what Godaddy was except maybe when their preacher railed against their ad campaigns from the pulpit.

> You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist.

Who is advocating to pretend like this. If that was the case, we'd all be sitting back hoping nobody found out about this. Instead, those opposed to this law are making as much noise as possible.

Okay, so... what's the problem with SEO warring it, or putting out iOS macros to spam their tip submission form? I'm the OP. I was responding to a parent comment saying that posting this was tantamount to giving the .com site more eyeballs. I'm arguing that posting the .net ruse site is _not_ giving them any more attention from their target audience (Texas, anti-abortion) than they're already getting.

Not to play internet tough guy but if you stand between my wife and her healthcare, things are going to get ugly. Forced-birth advocates need to BTFO.

If I were us, I'd get on the internet, send out a major distress signal.

Hackers of the world, unite!

"This site is clearly not intended to serve as medical advice. It’s the internet, talk to a doctor!"

Well, as long as your not in Texas, you can do that

Advocating for a SEO war against a site you politically disagree with is childish. the site in question, is really mild mannered and not in any way trying to harm individuals or prevent anyone from exercising their rights under texas law.

"Now that you know we hope you will help us by making sure that we don’t encourage their site spreading, instead we want them to be forgotten."

And never let people read what they're advocating for or against?

"Any Texan can bring a lawsuit against an abortionist or someone aiding and abetting an abortion after six weeks. If these individuals are proved to be violating the law, they have to pay a fine of at least $10,000."

This is just Texas being Texas. trying to hide what the law states will only make things worse. not that I endorse lawsuit vigilantism.

[webarchive link since the site is down] https://web.archive.org/web/20210818200444/https://prolifewh...

I don't see how the .net site hides what the law states...? Its front page contains the same text as the .com site, with some snark-up.

The anonymous tip part is not harmless.. I have no idea how you don’t think that.

Personally, I’m much more mystified by how emotionally invested otherwise normal people become in initiatives to reduce the numbers of undesirable populations. Margaret Sanger wasn’t exactly subtle.

Around 23.7% of women in the US had had an abortion by age 45, as of 2017[1]. I don't think they did it because they believed in eugenics. They made difficult, sometimes wrenching personal choices.

What I don't understand is how otherwise normal people who want the government out of their lives can suddenly demand the government get involved in one of the most personal decisions anyone will ever make.

[1] https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common...

because somewhere between a baby and a bunch of cells you get inalienable human rights. according to texas, after 6 weeks.

Why do I feel I get flak because people think I'm pro life. I'm not, but even if I was that shouldn't be a valid argument.

And according to other countries at 3 months, or at conception. I'm just pointing out the irony that the most restrictive interpretation now in the US is in a place that supposedly prides itself on individual liberty. The principle of least governmental interference seems not to apply in this case, even for the same people who are up in arms about, I don't know, the government telling them to wear a mask in situations where they might kill a full grown human? I've seen them marching at antivax protests with signs reading "my body my choice"... well, is it or ain't it?

I know, I know. The real mark of being "Texas" isn't being conservative or having some kind of consistent view of liberty and governance. It's the lack of coherent logic and the fun of gaslighting.

"It's the lack of coherent logic and the fun of gaslighting. " That's certainly the case here, many haven't read what the law states and how its being 'enforced' again, if the law states that you can't abort after 6 weeks I would be fine with it. The problem is that its not criminal in nature to abort a living human being with a heartbeat as stated in the law. (Yes, you've read that right) its a civil case. Despite the politicians getting exactly what they want, its still a complete misrepresentation what ACTUAl pro-life advocates stand for. Surely in this polarized age some might argue the end justifies the means, but I can't accept that. why they chose to make this a civil case is obvious, they state it outright in their press release:

[https://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Texas-Heartb...] "Relies on civil enforcement of the law by citizens, making it virtually impossible for a court to strike down the law as “unconstitutional.”"

which is exactly what happened. as is the case with civil suits, performing abortions after 6 weeks is therefore only a problem IF someone decides to sue you and has evidence. Medical information is also protected so god only knows how this piece of work is going to turn out.

I mentioned this because technically the government is NOT involved in any of this because its not a criminal case.

I don't care about populations. I do care about individual people. The right to abortion follows directly from the right to make one's own choices about one's body (i.e. bodily autonomy).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com