I asked for specific examples of the violations, not a blanket statement
that it all does.
Let's take this page as an example then
<https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb:Operation%20Disrespectful%20Nod/conduct%20guide.md>,
Please show me
- The defamation on this page.
- Show me the threats or inciting for violence
- Show me the violations of privacy, As far as I know, all emails on this
page were found in public sources such as this
<http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-customer-service-and-jeff-bezos-emails-2013-10>
I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can show me areas where there are
problems. And I'm happy to remove content that is actually a problem. But I
can't do anything about it if you say: everything is wrong and don't point
to actual examples.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Michael Reilly
wrote:
> On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:53:31 PM UTC-4, Ethan Eldridge wrote:
> > On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:43:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Reilly wrote:
> > > After github closed the gamersgate repository for TOS violation, they
> migrated to gitorious.
> > >
> > >
> https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/1998bc086a38aa7f4507c42ed944d8bb1a4f89eb
> :
> > >
> > >
> https://gitorious.org/gamergate/gamergate/source/ba751c3a3dedde6f3c3676d3a5da19ce0eb43a2e:Operation%20Dig%20Dig%20Dig
> > >
> > > Essentially, the entire repository revolves around finding people of
> interest for doxxing. After github closed the repo the employee responsible
> has been targeted as well, and his personal info has been partially
> compromised.
> > >
> > > This repo also seems to violate gitorious's TOS. So I would urge you
> to deal with this matter.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > First off, a boycott is not harassment, it is the consumers choice to
> make their decision to take their dollar somewhere else. In order to do
> this wisely they need to know both sides of the story. They can read the
> original gamers are dead posts for one side, they can also read articles in
> support of GamerGate to round out their knowledge. The repository is a
> source of information. Nothing more, nothing less.
> >
> > Dig dig dig does single people out for research. Because GamerGate
> supporters believes that there are people who have engaged in collusion and
> corruption, if you were looking for people who were racist or sexist, would
> you not tell other people who they were and say: "maybe we should look into
> this?". This is the same situation, dig dig dig calls for researching
> through public information and does not endorse or request any doxxing or
> illegal activities to obtain information. There is nothing nefarious about
> this operation.
> >
> >
> > Operation Disrespectful Nod singles out people yes, because they are the
> representatives of their companies. This is common sense, if you want to
> talk to a company you need to know whom to talk to. Putting their names out
> there is nothing different than finding it on the contact pages of their
> respectful sites. They are not "targets", they are the contact point for
> their company. If you were to contact a group you did not agree with,
> wouldn't you do the same? And spread the information if you wanted more
> people to share your voice? Which encourages being polite and voicing your
> concerns in a reasonable way? Also this is not a "spam campaign", this is a
> consumer uproar. There is nothing illegal about encouraging people to voice
> their opinions, this is what leaflet and grassroots campaign do all the
> time. GreenPeace hands out leaflets, we hand out links.
> >
> > Twitter Flooding Instructions.md is a NOT walkthrough for creating
> sockpuppet accounts. It is a guide to creating a twitter account for those
> who do not have one, or who do not want to associate their realname with an
> account because they are afraid of retribution. It is not about sockpuppets
> it is about protecting yourself through anonymity.
> >
> > The repository does not incite threats, nor violence, not spam. You are
> wrong (IMO) and trying to remove speech and content which offends you, we.
> or at least I, live in America where speech is free and debate and polite
> disagreements benefit everyone by allowing civil discourse to educate both
> parties on differing views.
> >
> > Where does the article violate the terms of service? Specific examples
> please. As someone who contributes to the repo I would like to know what
> needs to be edit-ed if it is illegal in some way. Thank you
>
> It violates this clause of the TOS:
>
> the
