Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik  I think it makes the people who do it look bad.
Not that I agree with the RIAA.
But I'd rather see a pointed campaign at all of the RIAA's sources of funding. Targeted boycotts, that sort of thing. This stuff just gets the RIAA sympathy from the public at large.
Fights have to be picked carefully. Vandalism doesn't do much to convince others you're right.
|
This is a very good point, and it applies to all activism/campaigning in general. If the public don't know much about the matter, it will just look like an unprovoked attack, no matter how good your reasons may be.
For example, a group I was engaged in was planning to tear down some huge advertising posters around town. The reason? The company was using nearly-pornographic models to advertise underwear made by child labourers. But although I support this thought, I highly doubt most people would understand this based on what they see, which is a vandalized poster and a ruined investment.
I see hacking "activism" as much the same thing. The only effect it will have is sympathy with the attacked. The exception might be if the website is actually doing something harmful, which is stopped by hacking it, but I don't know any examples of this ever happening.
