Nostr Web Client

nostr:npub1mznweuxrjm423au6gjtlaxmhmjthvv69ru72t335ugyxtygkv3as8q6mak I've followed your work for years. I'm genuinely grateful for your journalism, especially your defense of privacy, censorship-resistance and Tornado Cash.

That's why I'm confused seeing you say "more of this please" about the ccc incident. It seems counterproductive and contradictory to everything you've stood for. If infrastructure destruction based on ideology is acceptable, what principle protects Tornado Cash users, privacy tools, or any other infrastructure that powerful actors decide is "dangerous"?

I genuinely don't understand how this aligns with the principles you've defended before. Can you help me understand what I'm missing?

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Thanks for asking, I think it‘s a good question.

The difference is that I would never support a government doing such a thing, but that does not mean that i do not support direct action against people who attempt to assume authority over others.

Example 1: Germany has been considering banning the AFD - i dont think thats a good idea, but i do support every person who sabotages their operations.

Example 2: I‘ve been working on an article about EU sanctions on free speech, which include both very left and very right wing figures. While I would support people making the decision to not platform them, I do not support their government censorship.

I think its a very important distinction thats missing in your above analysis, much of which I agree with by the way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Another point i think you are missing is the paradox of tolerance: if we remain tolerant towards those who are intolerant, there will quickly be no more tolerance left; its pretty much what killed all anarchist movements around the world, who over and over again teamed up with the commies, only for the commies to turn around and sell them out.

tree 木 3d ago

> over and over again teamed up with the commies, only for the commies to turn around and sell them out.

This is exactly what is happening on CCC and you are applauding it. Sorry, but what you are saying is not consistent at all.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

I actually dislike and publicly criticize the CCC - havent attended the event in the last 4 years; that doesnt mean that I can‘t like specific projects that are presented there.

You say you want to understand my arguments, yet you over-exaggerate and dramaticize them into things I never said, so this isn‘t very fun for me xx

tree 木 3d ago

It really makes no sense, criticize the CCC but applaud one of the most intolerant talk, which is literally about coming to someone else property and burning it (plus expose all people there). These actions are precisely what making CCC more socialist, collectivist and tribal.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Again, you do not seem to understand the principle of direct action and continue to throw everything you disagree with into a bucket you don‘t like

Not very intellectually stimulating

tree 木 3d ago

I understand what direct action means. Cypherpunks build cryptographic tools as direct action against authoritarians who are actually oppressing people. Direct action makes sense against those committing violence against others or destroying their property.

BUT direct action is not meant to be used against people who simply hold different opinions and aren't factually harming anyone. Going to someone's property to burn things and expose attendees isn't targeting oppressors - it's targeting people for their ideas and associations.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

I can use direct (non-violent) action against anyone I dislike. If you disagree with this you must have a government to arbitrate, which voids your „i am an anarchist“ self-proclamation. Hope that helps!

tree 木 3d ago

I think we're getting somewhere.

To me, breaking into someone else's property (server) and burning documents (deleting) sounds like a violent act. Even if you had an open door, I still see it as violence and aggression.

> I can use direct (non-violent) action against anyone I dislike

Sure, same as operators of white-suprematist racist websites. The point is when it becomes violent. I haven't seen any violence from those who do whitedating, whereas I do see it on the other side.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Okay. Since you identify as an anarcho-capitalist, letd use some language of the philosophy you follow to maybe help you understand.

Rothbard defined private property as anything that is a scarce resource.

While a server is considered private property under this framework, data is not - first because it is words, second because it can be indefinitely copied, backedup, and redistributed.

Without getting into whether we find it justified to break into someone else‘s server or not you state that this is violence, while I believe that this is a pretty insane distortion of the term which will only lead us toward a future where words no longer have any meaning.

Its just one of the many ways in which many ancaps are inherently nonsensical: you claim words should be free and do not hurt anyone, then claim that deleting a spreadsheet is a criminal offense (which both, btw, are nothing but words).

Second, you can argue that the founder of the site engaged in direct action, and i dont have a problem with the site existing per se. But action always reaps a reaction - and in this case one that i support. Crying about it just makes you sound like a sore loser.

Fyi, since such data is usually backedup, Im sure the site is already running elsewhere again.

tree 木 3d ago

I think you're conflating two different things. I'm also against intellectual property and digital monopolies on ideas or information. But breaking into someone's server isn't about copying information - it's about violating their physical infrastructure and their autonomy over their own tools.

The server is physical property that someone built and maintains. Breaking into it violates their control over their own equipment and destroys their work. This isn't about state-defined "property rights" - it's about basic respect for the boundary between your domain and someone else's. If I break into your house and burn your diary, the problem isn't copyright on your words - it's that I invaded your space and destroyed what you created.

I don't know or care if it's legally criminal, but it's clearly unethical. Your "data can be infinitely copied" argument would justify any digital intrusion - no privacy, no security, no boundaries. Anyone with technical skills could do whatever they want to anyone else's systems.

For me, real anarchism means voluntary cooperation and mutual respect for autonomy - not "whoever can hack wins".

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Sorry my guy, but this isn‘t going anywhere as you continue to misrepresent what i say to fit your narrative. Not fun and not productive 👋

Hanshan 2d ago

whoa whoa whoa whoa

You're trying to say that because the server is digital that accessing it and changing it without the rightful owners consent is NOT violence?!

where exactly is this boundary that we cross where the word violence becomes meaningless?

because it sounds like you've already made that call and it's ALREADY meaningless.

mister_monster 2d ago

I wonder what the response would be if a publishing house wiped Anna's archive.

Hanshan 2d ago

"it was just words and therefore non-scarce. so it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle."

mister_monster 2d ago

You can use any action against anyone you dislike, and without a government to arbitrate, if you can defend yourself, you get away with it. Someone disagreeing with what I just said appeals to a government by your logic.

Destruction of property is violent.

CensorThis 2d ago

She’s a women, she’s virtually incapable of being consistent.

H 2d ago

The paradox of tolerance (in spite of some infographics) relates to discourse, not beliefs. You should not tolerate the free speech of those who do not tolerate free speech.

If someone or some group intended to force their beliefs on others that would meet Popper's threshold, but those practicing freedom of association would not.

CensorThis 2d ago

“If we remain tolerant of the intolerant,” which is a wildly intolerant statement.

Who are you to decide what should be tolerated?

Should we all be under the thumb of forced multiculturalism from talmudic jews?

According to you everyone is allowed freedom of association except for white people.

You’re an intolerant cunt bitch pretending to have a monopoly on what’s tolerated.

Owen Gregory 2d ago

Well, she told us all along:

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqspems74fnwqng66tj3y4h6fp5qwal8ldw3ftg0avd4jf22ceyhjwsw30k0g

tree 木 3d ago

Thanks for engaging, L0la. I appreciate the discussion, but I think there's a fundamental flaw in this framework.

You say they "assume authority over others", but I watched the journalist's videos. I saw a few small websites where racists meet each other in their corner. There was zero factual danger from these websites. I saw swastikas, extremist people expressing opinions - sure, abhorrent opinions - but just opinions. They weren't exercising authority over anyone. They were organizing among themselves.

For me, it seems the opposite - CCC (which is de facto an institution at this point) and these hackers are the ones assuming authority over others. They decided which groups deserve infrastructure and which don't. They exercised power to destroy spaces they disapprove of. That's assuming authority.

With the same logic, we could now attack "black-only" sites, or any nationalist sites, or any group organizing around identity. The principle "they're trying to assume authority" is so broad it justifies attacking almost anyone you disagree with.

Democracy itself is fundamentally about "assuming authority over others." That's what voting is - 51% assuming authority over the other 49%. If you're really against people assuming authority over others, it would be far more consistent to support sabotaging all democratic political parties, not just the ones you personally don't like.

The "paradox of tolerance" doesn't solve this. Everyone believes they're fighting intolerance. White supremacists think they're defending against forces trying to destroy them. This framework and theirs seems structurally identical - both claim the right to preemptively attack because the other side is "intolerant". But this is exactly how tribal conflicts escalate into endless cycles of retaliation.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

Untrue imo. These people arent „organizing amongst themselves“, they are organizing against other people - and thats the key difference.

I have no problem with white people who only want to date white people or black people who only want to date black people.

But there is a problem when that convulges with other people are inferior and need to be dominated because they do not share our beliefs/identity/etc.

tree 木 3d ago

Sorry, but you're basically saying it's legitimate to destroy infrastructure based on what people believe (that others are inferior), not what they do. This is pure ideology policing. Who decides when dating preferences "convulge with" beliefs about inferiority?

Many people think certain political ideologies inherently view others as inferior. Communists think capitalists view workers as inferior. Capitalists think communists view individualists as inferior. Religious people think atheists view believers as inferior. Bitcoin maximalists think shitcoiners as inferior. All of these groups "organize against other people". Does any of this justify hacking their infrastructure?

These websites weren't organizing attacks. They weren't planning violence (I really haven't seen any evidence). They were expressing abhorrent opinions in their own corner.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

I think you havent watched the entire talk on the site‘s founder and the people who were on this app - who base their beliefs on eugenicism (if you dont know what that is, you may want to look that one up).

Equating this to shitcoiners, religion, etc is just nonsene, sorry.

And yes, i do think that communists hacking capitalists who exploit workers is a good thing, just as it is a good thing that capitalists hack communists who want to eliminate individual rights.

That’s not „ideology policing“ - it is supporting the freedom of taking direct action against something you dont believe in, which is a right everyone should have access to in a democracy.

tree 木 3d ago

> the freedom of taking direct action against something you dont believe in

If direct action means pointing it out, explaining it, cursing it, removing these people from your property... then I totally agree. Having a stupid opinion is also freedom. But this goes much further. This was an aggressive attack on someone else's infrastructure, a violation of the non-aggression principle. Basically, the exact behavior we want to fight against.

So I don't see the difference between this and what the NSDAP did in Weimar. If racists were banning Jews from going to their own shops, publicly criticizing them, then ok... But the problem started when they started aggressively using violence to impose this on others.

L0la L33tz 3d ago

*blinks*

Ok then buddy

Comte de Sats Germain 2d ago

You're not one of us, Lola. Based on what you've said here, you have no morals. We're not anarchists to be criminals. Clearly you are.

DagzTagz 2d ago

Correct

mister_monster 2d ago

A dating site, strictly limited in its capacity, is simply people choosing who to date based on their own personal criteria. You say you support that. It doesnt appear that you do.

Here's a question you might want to answer: what's wrong with thinking others are inferior? When one asks this question, automatically it is assumed that they are sympathetic or defending those ideas, so I feel the need to point out that I am not doing that, I genuinely hold no love for white supremacy or any racial supremacy. But its a valid question to explore. What exactly is wrong with someone thinking they're better than others based on some immutable criteria? I can see how acting violently towards others is, but just thinking they're better, choosing who they associate with etc, what do you think is morally wrong with that?

Tauri 2d ago

So coercion, censorship and destruction of property when exercised by the state is bad, but the same things exercised by private individuals is fine.

You’ll do fine as a politburo agent. 👌

nostr:nevent1qqszjt50h650w3k28qn97gll2y0ngyasckd3key7v7gj44nqpgylttqpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcmtjrqj