That’s actually not funny. If those activities were coordinated its a chilling message.

Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the technology industry.

This type of comment (and how divorced from reality it is) is an example of the problem.

Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere.

I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that.

I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.)

(Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)

I appreciate the comment and believe you about your intent. I use the word "trollish" in a context like this because the effects are unfortunately much the same even if you didn't intend them, and thus weren't strictly trolling.

Why are you trying to diminish how serious this is?

Bomb threats are terrorism.

> I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus

The way you think actively harms people.

> Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described.

> I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner.

This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing comments I've read in 10 years on Hacker News, sneak. Calling in fake bomb threats isn't harmless or nonviolent and it increases the deadliness of real threats by diminishing their seriousness. I suggest you read the folktale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Furthermore, people have died as a result of false swatting and I don't doubt people have also died as a result of fake bomb threats. Calling it a nonviolent form of protest is disturbing.

I strongly suggest you find more productive ways to voice your opinions.

Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act?

The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa.

I did not call it a protest or a form of protest.

I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse.

In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”.

If one is violent, then the other is as well.

We can't know the full details of this particular case because nothing seems to have been independently verified yet, but there's a distinction between

1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and

2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't)

All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm.

Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk?

You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.

Hey @dang / mod team, I can't flag this post for some reason.

Could you take a look at this post, which advocates for bomb threats against companies he doesn't like?

Oh so bomb threats and crashing trucks is non-violent now.

ok

Under law or according to your opinion?

Google tells me that truck is associated with an existing campaign against Facebook by vpn.com.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/09/1466758/0/...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22deletefacebook%22+%22truc...

Seems like they would be the first people to contact about a bomb threat then.

Maybe, at the same time, given these trucks are everywhere, I have no idea whether the photo in the parent is a truck blocking the highway out or a random picture of truck somewhere.

Do we have confirmation this was indeed at the same time? A comment below seems to indicate this truck was there previously.

You keep using that word.