• Knightfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

    I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.

        • Hazor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It would also have to cause terror. The people using these websites live in such an abject state of terror about their own inferiority that this probably had no measurable effect anyway.