online prothest methods

In many countries we are all in lockdown, and we can't gather on the streets anymore to protest for any reason. So i was thinking, what are the methods of online protest one can adopt? I'm talking about mass protests, something that involves more than one hacker. The only 2 i can think about are raiding (that's ok) and DDoS, but i suppose nowadays 100 people, or even 1000 are not enough to DDoS anything, am i right? I'm not a techie, so sorry if the questions may sound stupid.

At this point a 1000DDos might make a difference if you target the right places at the right time. The government doesnt care about any protests however, if you cause them too much trouble you might simply become some victim of whatever.

hacktivism is still illegal there was a guy during operation payback (back in the lulzsec days) he joined for only a few seconds and got charged. just keep this in mind. second protesting only works when the gears of the "system" you're protesting come to a grinding hault, the most ddosing does is shuts off their main site at best. i suggest being a bit more.... "creative" with online activism.

>>16477 Well, obviously is quite difficult to completely stop the gears of something online, i think the aim of the protest insteas should be to propagate a message to the broadest audience possible making it viral (sorry for the unvoluntary wordplay) and to bring the protesters who participate into actively doing something, even if little, so that you keep contact with them afterwards and prepare the ground for irl organization after the lockdown finishes and the economic crisis starts (or maybe "worsens" is the correct word). About the "creative" methods, if they are not too illegal for Lainchan, what are you meaning exactly?

>>16475 Supposed you were capable of hacking Google's main page and display any message of your choice for 48 hours, do you think people will give a fuarrrk? The only way to actually influence people is by adopting persistent global large scale brainwashing campaign like the alphabet people lobby is doing, with the backing of corps who see a chance for profit by removing all that makes us individuals so they can sell the same soykaf to everyone. Why do you think nobody gives a fuarrrk about the environment? No corporation wants that, so without a marketing scheme it doesn't matter how much you push your idea. People are braindead cattle, they only listen to propaganda and what makes them feel good, like buying soykaf, stuffing their fuarrrking faces and decorating themselves and their homes so they can post a picture online and get approval from other retarded sheep. Nobody cares unless you're selling something, so maybe start selling something.

Why do anything online at all? Something that is probably legal (depending where you live) is to just keep calling your governmenton the phone and asking for what you want and keep doing this as often as possible to annoy them. I suppose you also can write emails too but they are easier to ignore.

>>16479 m8, you are quite pessimistic. Revolutions happen, but you need to have an organized subjectivity who is there when the contradictions of the system explode. Look at Chile's and France's 2019 uprisings. Sure, they haven't made a revolution, but they obtained something AND put the basis for future action, and without organized groups of protesters none of these would have happened. The kids that were there in these days, will remember it for the rest of their lives. take advantage of the knowledge they acquired and hopefully organize protests themselves. In low-mobilization times, organizing people through things that probably won't impact reality (such as irl marchs, assemblies and leafleting or online raids, petitions or phonebombing as suggested by >>16485) helps in getting people close to you and maintaining a minimum organizative level, which is very useful when mass protest eventualy spourt again. When i say "online protest" i solely mean the aforementioned aim of organize and aggregate people, nothing more. We are already doing stuff (assembies in audio chat cahnnels, raiding istitutional social media and internal chat groups of workplaces, schools and universities with propaganda material), but if you have some cool other ideas i'm glad to hear them!

>>16475 >we can't gather on the streets anymore to protest for any reason. First of all, can't =/= won't. I think what you mean is most people "won't" gather on the streets, I think the reasons and morality of that are self explanatory and the subject of another thread if you so desire. If you take down a website, the users of that site will be turned against you. Hacktivism is not effective unless it is targeted specifically towards some oppressor (i.e. people hacking against dictatorships). Also like >>16477 said, most countries specifically protect the right of free speech and assembly, but hacking is generally a very severe crime. Defacing or destroying or otherwise disrupting a website will get you in about as much trouble as lighting a bank on fire or smashing windows at your local government building. and could best be described as online "rioting." In order to actually elicit change from a form of protest, there needs to be an overwhelming belief that the cause of the protesters are the paragons of justice, while whatever they are protesting is the embodiment of evil, to the extent that the subject of protest will either step down or its members will turn against it and defect to the side of the protestors. tl;dr, you don't win hearts and minds by throwing a moltov cocktail at your local courthouse (unless they abduct, torture, and murder people regularly, which is actually a commonplace practice in many third world country protests), and in the same way hacking things does not work effectively against organizations and sites unless they are actually committing atrocities.

I just found this defcon talk about using osint to investigate politicians https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfT5-EPy7qc

>>16508 >in the same way hacking things does not work effectively against organizations and sites unless they are actually committing atrocities Phineas Phisher would beg to differ.

>>16514 He doesn't differ, he just moves the goalposts of what committing an atrocity is

>>16508 i wonder if you actually read my other posts in this thread apart form the opening one. I also wrote >>16478 and >>16501

>>16475 >In many countries we are all in lockdown, and we can't gather on the streets anymore to protest for any reason. What specifically do you want to protest against? I'm not trying to sound sarcastic or judgmental, I'm legitimately curious.

>>16625 we are doing a rent strike and protesting about various student issues which i would prefer not to specify in order to avoid doxxing

As if your """""online protest """"" would actually change anything.

A good march now requires less people. Maintain physical distance, and have the people around the edges occasionally cough. Block up the bridges of konigsberg, the government wouldn'd dare squeeze protestors together, for fear of exacerbating the pandemic. Probably, just having the march with the pandemic is enough to pressure the government, but they'll have to manage it peacefully. It's a free biological weapon, but noöne knows whether the protestors have it. >protesting only works when the gears of the "system" you're protesting come to a grinding hault, the most ddosing does is shuts off their main site at best. Not necessarily. This is the extreme case, where the protested is adamantine. If the protested is not powerful, it's easy to halt it, and halting it is significantly harmful to it---surviving adamantine nonpowerful protested entities are maimed. If the protested is powerful, it's difficult to halt it, and halting it is not significantly harmful to it---surviving adamantine powerful protested entities are healthy, but weaker, unless the halt was severely long. Powerful entities can abuse more, so there might be more to protest. Protests against adamantine powerful entities that are not killed live long. Now protests are difficult to kill. A smart protested entity will see the protest and ask (itself or others) why the protest exists, whether it's reasonable. If it's unreasonable, the question becomes how to ameliorate the protest amicably; a protest probably has a good reason, but it might be misdirected. Working with the protest might be an opportunity to increase profit. If the protest is reasonable, the question becomes how to become fairer. Becoming fairer might lower immediate profit, but the higher reputation will cause higher long-term profit. Another opportunity to increase profit. A protest against a smart entity does not live long, because it is quelled amicably or satisfied. There's less to protest about smart entities---they learn. Protests kill or maim adamantine nonpowerful entities. There's more to protest about adamantine powerful entities, and the protests are difficult to kill---there are more and longer protests against adamantine powerful entities, and only a halt, not even maiming it, reminds it what profit it can gain by coöperating. Survivor bias. >i suggest being a bit more.... "creative" with online activism. Uncreative activism is {\sl passive-aggressivism}. >a guy during operation payback (back in the lulzsec days) joined for only a few seconds and got charged. just keep this in mind. I suppose ``lulzsec'' stands for the laughibility of their members' security. >Supposed you were capable of hacking Google's main page and display any message of your choice for 48 hours, do you think people will give a fuarrrk? Yes. People will care---if it's germane art. That's how to think about these sorts of things---opportunities to perform a transient, germane artproduct. Even if nothing soon changes, the memory of that stunt shall remain, and shall seed further creative dissent. Remember that the primary target of revolution are the oppressed. (Would you like an order of restart cash with that freedom?) >Why do you think nobody gives a fuarrrk about the environment? Because the environment, contrary to popular belief, can't kick back.

>>16625 >What specifically do you want to protest against? I'm not trying to sound sarcastic or judgmental, I'm legitimately curious. Don't worry, you don't sound judgemental. You sound like a dataminer.

What about flooding communications such as support phone lines, email, live chat, comment sections, etc? With good coordination I bet it would be just as effective as the best DDoS. Would that be legal though?

>>17478 This is radical but violent. You can go for radical without violence: think of early project chanology - prank pizza deliveries and black faxes. This is borderline illegal - there's no specific law written that prohibits prank wars as far as I know but they cause provable monetary damages. Be civil about it. Lots of successful protests were civil - think of Gandhi, Martin L. King or the Velvet Revolution. You don't want people to disagree with you; you can start a protest radically and violently if you wish. This will attract attention but not agreement - this is the case of Ted Kaczynski. Or you can start it radically without violence - this is pretty much any protest that started with self-immolation. This doesn't necessarily attract agreement either, but people tend to be a bit more empathetic when you take your own life instead of someone else's. A less radical way to start a protest is hunger strike. Attention, agreement, action. There were protests which had attention and agreement but had barely any action - the fight for net neutrality and the fight against article 13 (now 17) are two examples. There was attention, people agreed that it sucked but the action was weak (the sheer amount of signatures should have been enough but it wasn't). On the other hand, do you remember SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? Everyone acted. People didn't just say "pls sign this", no - sites blacked out, people made posters, videos, games, music, they've sent mails, they've made phone calls, they went outside and protested. One thing I didn't mention (but it should be evident by now) is the size of the problem - if you protest because your local coffee shop doesn't sell mugs, people won't care. In the end it's about how sizable you can make this problem look. It is possible to overthrow the whole government just because your local coffee shop doesn't sell mugs, but it's much easier if you start with something more problematic.

>>17488 >there's no specific law written that prohibits prank wars as far as I know but they cause provable monetary damages If it costs them money, they can take legal action in a number of different ways from civil suits to injunctions. As for the rest of what you wrote, I don't know, you seem to filter history through the lens of your own choosing. It would probably be difficult to make you see otherwise.

>>17489 Absolutely feel free to change my mind, I'm open to anything. I don't have many experiences with protests and when it comes to one I'm usually the guy on the outside, looking in. But I find it redundant to say that everything you see here should be taken with a grain of salt - aside from other factors, some people (including me) are bad at writing small replies and so they refrain from mentioning other knowledge they might have to keep the post less complicated. I'm sorry if I sound ignorant about something, I don't intend to but it's not very easy to keep an eye on one's own ignorance, if you understand me.

DDoS servers of walking permit application websites and apps for location tracking? It's the obvious thing. When these sites cease functioning, there would be no leverage on citizens, the government will have to drop such totalitarian measures. Maybe I'm little too late, this had to be done just about as when such measures started appearing.

>>16475 If you want to remain in the legal bounds, the only thing that you can do is to tarnish someone's IRL reputation (and that only works if you got some goods on them that will actually hurt their reputation). All other forms of 'online protesting' (Petitions, Twitter hashtags, 'Like/Repost-if-you-agree', Trolling, Raiding) are ineffective because they can be easily ignored or be discarded as 'trolling'. As the past has proven, protesting only works if you really hurt the one you're protesting, and almost all those things are restricted by the Lawbook.

>>16475 back to [spoiler]no really, anybodh cares you protests?[/spoiler]