Visa and Mastercard will accept donations to the KKK, who are a known domestic terrorist organization who has repeatedly committed bombings, arsons, and murders, but they won’t accept donations from a news organization that has never been charged with anything.

Paypal has closed wikileaks’ account and seized the contents, apparently some 60,000 euros. Paypal has a history of doing this, where they can take anyone’s money for any reason because they’re not a bank.

Cutting into these companies bottom line, preventing people from generating them money, instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt in their customers, is certainly a good way to get their attention.

Anon isn’t organized. They have no coherent message. Throwing bricks at a starbucks window doesn’t get a point across very well, but they do have their reasons.

Anons are, at heart, attention whores and trolls. They’d continue in spite of being told to stop. I think Wikileaks understands this, and I suggest that many (if admittedly not all) actions taken under the name of Anonymous would make more sense if viewed in this light.

My sympathies to those hurt by this action. I hope it ends soon, with the /b/tards feeling that they’ve made their statement, and drawn attention to the less-than-stellar behavior of the involved financial institutions.

@Niklas #52: It’s not so hard to see how these two sorts of “information flow” are not equivalent. There’s a lot that’s stupid about the DDoS, but your criticism doesn’t really hit the target.

All economic boycotts have consequences. This one actually doesn’t have very big consequences, but it is letting the world know that there are people who aren’t willing to let government liars peddle their crimes unchecked.

DEFEND WIKILEAKS / SUPPORT OPERATION PAYBACK

Couldn’t one easily make the case that shutting down PayPal could end their domination of the space. Why is it good that PP has a near-monopoly on this kind of economic activity. Do you think that’s a good thing?

How bad would PayPal have to behave to make you okay with shutting them down for a few hours in protest?

And I’m sorry, but PayPal is a very large business, whose former CEO just tried to buy herself the Governorship of California. Don’t act like they are just a bunch of cute little elves.

@ Terabyte: they didn’t just stop hosting a site. They stopped people’s legitimate donations to a site the was doing nothing illegal, then froze their money in limbo. Where is your consideration for those little people, your fellow citizens?

…

…

…

…NOT!

I disagree with the DDOS, but I also think they deserve it for stealing their users’ money when they suspend them.

I’m just so frustrated!

Let us not be sheeps. Somebody at these companies has made the decision to go against wikileaks and the consequence is a revolt against THESE people. And the rest of the folk just shuts their mouths and sits in the corner? I say call their hot-lines, ask why you can not shop your christmas presents or do your accounts. Make them accountable. Ultimately, YOU are paying for your service (and don’t be fooled, even if it’s for free, you are paying provisions from the transactions anyway).

I feel sorry hearing that all everybody cares for is their christmas presents. We are blinded by our governments, our basic rights are taken away and all we care for is our shopping list? Switch on the brains, people. Seriously.

Yes.

It may inconvenience a few people in the name of protest and free speech, but it’s worth it to make the point. It also brings more attention to the issues at hand with our modern world. Open your mind and think a little bit bigger than your belly button.

Or better yet, a mob of anonymous furry porn fueled teens commenting such insightful things as “give fuckin paypal some butthurt to support Julean!” from their cozy suburbia parents’ paid DSL modems to save the world.

I’m surprised to see so much support for trickle down economics on this site. I guess it’s difficult to see the big picture when you’re the one being trickled on.

Wikileaks has nothing to do with these attacks. Some script kiddies took it on themselves to launch this attack.

Considering the concept of Wikileaks is to create a safe environment for anyone to leak documents and then have the material diseminated, how exactly does this DDoS create any safe environment? And how can that “insurance” file ever be opened now that this DDoS nonsense is mixed in with WIkileaks?

Do you actually think of the big picture? And how much acting like fools hurts all.

I’m in strong favor of Wikileaks despite some issues I have with the latest leaks. But this DDoS stuff is childish and self-destructive.

??

Somebody at these companies has made the decision to go against wikileaks and the consequence is a revolt against THESE people.

Wikileaks has nothing to do with DDoS attacks. And DDoS will not do anything but hurt Wikileaks in the big picture.

I’m all in favor of more mirroring of Wikileaks documents. But DDoS on this scale, in this way is not helpful to anyone.

Clear to some of us, maybe. What about the general public? It takes no great intelligence to realise that the actions of those who support a cause play a *huge* role in how that cause is perceived.

And right now, media throughout the world are running stories like “Hackers acting on behalf of WikiLeaks brought down the Visa website this morning”, or “An army of computer hackers have carried out revenge attacks against companies and organisations viewed as enemies of WikiLeaks”. That’s a *bad* look.

As for all the invective and claims of economic calamity thrown at Assange, WikiLeaks and Operation Payback — it’s history repeating itself.

When Nelson Mandela called for a boycott against South African apartheid, we heard all the same crap. He was called a “terrorist” and “traitor” for 20+ years, businessmen complained that sanctions “only hurt the little guy,” etc. etc. And I’m sure there were some businesses that lost some money because of it.

But now, looking back, we know it was all worth it. Mandela is revered as a national hero. We know the sanctions, even if they hurt some people’s bottom line, served a greater good.

I am confident history will judge Assange and WikiLeaks the same way.