@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak Stop clinging to the "extortion" label, it's just a way to phrase the situation. My point was focused on the fact that GitHub/NPM had every right to ban him regardless of whether his motivation was money or trolling or anything else that isn't an innocent mistake
@klayhamn @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak I'd argue that, if you're accusing someone of a federal crime, you should use make sure it's the right word. What marak did probably falls under cybercrime, aka different crime. If you don't know the right word, use Google to find the right word, instead of misinforming people.
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak What he did was ultimately motivated by his desire to protest the fact he isn't being compensated financially. Calling it "extortion" is reasonable hyperbole, I'm not the state so I'm not the one filing charges against him and don't care to be "precise" in my "accusations".
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak Especially since, as I said, his actual motivation isn't even relevant to the point. Even if he just meant to troll people for fun - it could still lead to the same result of him being banned. The criminal offense has nothing to do with it.
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak You trying to "tell me to google the right term so as to not misinform people" is - to be honest - quite ridiculous and is basically you clutching at straws to try to pin some sort of "blame" on me. If people are truly interested in legal definitions they can go and research them
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak Criminal offenses was never the point of my comments, and you trying to pretend like they were is quite pathetic. Go over my last tweets and arguments in this megathread and you'll see the only thing I care about is entitelement.
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak If he actually committed crimes - it's the state's job to prosecute or not prosecute him. I'm here in response to the claim that his ban was somehow "unjust", "undeserved" or an infringement of his "rights".
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak Also calling an intentional cyber-crime a "fuck up" is quite amusing. A "fuck up" is when you put ketchup when people asked for mustard as a McDonald's employee. When you intentionally cause harm to companies and individuals it's not a "fuck up".
@klayhamn @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak CI/CD pipeline failure is not international harm. Its a major fucking inconvenience sure, with a thousand devs solving the same problem at the same time (rolling back faker.js to 5.5.3) Harm is, services are down.
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak It's harm, by definition. Whether small or large, it caused harm, and it was intentional. That's more than enough to make my point that the ban would thus be justified, or at the very least- perfectly within their rights.
@metruzanca @JoshuaKGoldberg @marak Ditto. My point was only ever that what he did justified the ban, or - at the very least - there was no room for decrying the ban as "illegitimate", "unwarranted" or beyond their rights. That's all. Everything else is you "not reading what I write" and trying to force argument