this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
845 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
3792 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rockstar Games' servers have been under heavy fire from massive DDoS attacks in recent days, causing widespread login and connectivity issues for players of GTA Online. These attacks come in the wake of Rockstar’s recent implementation of BattlEye, a new anti-cheat system designed to crack down on in-game cheating, sparking backlash from a segment of the player base. Protesters, unhappy with the new system, have resorted to using distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks to disrupt the servers, escalating tensions between the gaming giant and its community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ok I'll bite: You disapprove of the method of protest they chose, but how can you be sure of their underlying emotional/rational motives? As analogy, consider workers: They have the option to protest in front of the HQ, or they have the option to strike, and keep scabs out. Would you say that workers choosing the latter are "childish little entitled pussies", after all, that's a denial of service attack, or would you say that it is possible, in at least principle, that those kinds of attacks represent a well-considered strategic choice?

If such rationale is possible, how can you be sure that whoever launched the DDOS did act out of childish emotion, instead of cold-blooded calculation? You, we, can still disapprove of the use of violence in this case (because, say, proportionality) but that's a consideration orthogonal as to whether we're talking about adult or puerile behaviour.

That all being said, can you now understand why leading with that kind of language might not get the best reaction, and is sub-optimal when it comes to you expressing your condemnation of DDOS attacks, or convincing anyone else of that stance. It lacks consideration.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Again- I don’t fucking care what the reason is. If they were butthurt about an anticheat application, OR Linux users that are denied the game now- If they are doing DDoS attacks, they’re childish little entitled pussies. End of story.

I meant what I said. Stop trying to justify it.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Again: But what if it isn't butthurt, but actual strategic consideration. You're refusing to consider people having any motive but that which you assume them to have at first impression, presumably the one out of which you would go for such a mode of action. But other people aren't you, and very well might choose their actions based on completely different principles. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong? "But muh they're butthurt" is not an answer to that question, you're only restating your premise.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DDoS attacks are done by butthurt entitled children.

I’m done discussing this.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Done discussing? You didn't even start.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ahh. So that’s how trolling works now? You pop into a discussion, act like an idiot to get someone to repeat themselves over and over, and when they give up trying, you tell them they shouldn’t have bothered voicing their opinion if they don’t want to continue enabling yours shit?

Yeah. I’m blocking you now.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I didn't jump into anything I started the discussion. You did not participate, and still aren't. Re-stating your premise is not an argument, you could've left it at "dude IDGAF what you say get off my back" from the start.