I personally take moral issue with oil companies, but society as a whole has not decided that they are deserving of punishment, so I save my actions for campaigning, lobbying, and supporting groups that are pushing for change.

On the other hand, society has decided, via law making, that ransomware attacks are deserving of punishment.

With so many differing opinions it's hard to please everyone. I'm in favour of having a range of voices that I might not agree with represented in media, but criminals advertising their crimes and talking about how they're getting better at doing it feels like it's fairly clearly past a line.

Following that logic nurses delivering babies are also on the same level considering they're supporting the growth of the human race (which causes all the environmental damage)...

There's a huge difference depending on "details"

That's of course a possible interpretation if you want to stretch everything to the extreme. OP thinks it's dangerous to publish a blog post with such an interview because it gives a platform to people who cause damage.

I'm just pointing out that oil companies have caused way more damage than this guy and they have had a massive platform for decades, why shouldn't we stop giving them a platform as well?

What about the nurses then? Because they've definitely caused a lot more damage?

Because one thing is illegal and the other isn't? In a society that holds laws relatively high that should be a super good argument?

As much as I loathe our response towards global warming. This comment shows why equivalence should not be taken lightly and how absurd the result can be.

How about holding people for ransom that is equivalent for sure, how about killing people? Well oil industry eventually ends up killing some people.

Let’s put a stop to oil industry before we deal with the kidnappers and killers!!

> Let’s put a stop to oil industry before we deal with the kidnappers and killers!!

Nobody said there has to be a priority. Why can't we stop both?

Moreover OP comments was not talking about stopping them, but about giving these people a platform.

Despite the damage done by oil companies they are still allowed to spend billions of dollars in marketing, lobbying, etc... Resulting in a much bigger, legalized, platform, while still causing way more damage than ransomware "companies".

It's the sad double standard that most companies have: Look, I pollute half the planet and I don't give a shit about investing in new technology, I just want my ARR of 100 million, and I'm willing to lie with cheap marketing ... But ransomware It's clearly a priority, we can't risk being attacked if we didn't do anything illegal, that's morally wrong, and I'm a very moral person.

How stupid people are on our planet, billionaire people are really very stupid people ... Put a scientific researcher and an entrepreneur to debate on any subject and that's when you realize that most "entrepreneurs" have the coefficient of a 5-year-old child.

why do we never see Elon Musk debate with researchers if he has as much intelligence as he says (the techno king)? It must be so as not to make a fool of himself on television (or youtube)

Whataboutism. Let’s respond by bringing up a completely unrelated topic to justify the actions of criminal organizations.

These are organized crime activities akin to cartel kidnappings, Somalia Pirates, mob extortion, and kidnapping tourists for ransom. 21st century pirates/mobsters.

How long until ransomware becomes extortion or protection schemes? Pay us a yearly fee and we’ll not hack you and if someone does hack you we’ll hack them back.

You have misunderstood what we're talking about.

Nobody is justifying anything, I'm just saying that if it's wrong to give these people a platform, why is it ok to give it to oil companies? The latter have caused way more damage than a random ransomware group.

>why is it ok to give it to oil companies?

Why do you assume GP is ok with that.

There's no assumption in what I wrote, that's just a question.

Meanwhile, GP is explicitly putting words in my mouth, but I guess it's ok because my comment was just whataboutism, right?

Seems like the person you are responding to understood your point and labeled it (quite correctly) whataboutism.

Can you point out where I justified the actions of these criminal organizations (as parent said)? It's funny that the comment labeling mine as whataboutism is factually incorrect about what I said.

It's easy to reply by labeling anything you don't agree with as whataboutism, because you don't have to go into the merit of the discussion. You don't have to articulate a reply, you don't need to reason about it.

I made a pretty simple analogy, and the only one who actually replied with something sensible was OP, which I appreciate.

Everyone else just tried to find logical fallacies (like now we need to stop nurses from giving birth) or just discredit the argument but without providing any meaningful reason.

Sorry to offend.

Most of the damage oil companies are making is legal. At the moment fracking is legal but IMHO it’s very damaging. Undersea oil drilling is legal but there are many accidents. Shipping oil is legal but there are a lot of accidents that cause massive environmental problems.

Ransomeware is never legal and organized crime is not legal in the West. They should not have a voice at all and should be treated like the criminal organizations they are.