Ex JW hacktivism

StarTrekAngel

I've been thinking about this for a while and wanted to check in to see what the experts had to say about it. We all know how difficult it is to any JW to accept TTATT. Just as difficult it is to have them even consider looking at anything that questions their belief. However, many are not there yet as they have no idea whats out there.

Some activists have resorted to print flyers and distribute them, others have used more agressive means to communicate their feelings. I remember the video of a guy standing outside an assembly, with mask, shouting as people were arriving at the assembly.

The intention of this thread, would be to discuss other methods, electronic ones specifically, to distribute information about TTATT. I mean electronically, because this is obviously where everything is heading. Therefore, any activism should also be redirected in that fashion. Off course, it seems almost silly to write this on an electronic forum, we are already here on that sense. However, this means the JW has to have an interest on whats out here in order to be exposed. I can not really detail what I am thinking of yet but... here is a question to kick things off. If you had the power to direct someone to a website, even against the user's will (DNS redirect for example), which site would it be? Most importantly, would you feel that is an option that would shield any potential results?

While thinking of your answers to the above and any other resulting questions, consider the following arguments...

- A website could be nothing but an electronic flyer or track describing or reasoning over TTATT, not a formal apostate site.

- Results do not have to be immediately defined as "one would immediately begin to search for more upon becoming aware". In the case of the above, a person could just close their browser and not consider what you are presenting. Results could come in the form of increased scrutiny among the organizational structure of a congregation. (divide and conquer) Don't ask how just yet, just think of the above example. If done enough, even escalate to the circuit or branch.

As usual, I appreciate your input.

Simon

Can I vote for "none of the above" ?

Trying to force people to read something doesn't work in any but an insignificant number of cases. Their eyes may see the words but their brains don't heed them. I think it also weakens the argument if you somehow have to trick people into seeing the message.

We already have the greatest tool available - it's called Google !

If people want to find out information then they can search for things from the privacy of their own home or office or on their phone while on the bus. Information cannot be suppressed and it's freely available when they are ready to find it.

Now what someone finds will determine how they may react to it. If it is too aggressive, especially toward them and their faith, then it's less likely they will read it with an open mind than if it's reasonable and friendly.

The things that stuck with me and made me start questioning things were never people shouting and waving banners at assemblies, it was small things people said that planted seeds often by them asking me about me beliefs and them perhaps saying "oh, sorry, I read in some old watchtower that you believed something different" (followed up by a reference).

If people can be encouraged to try to refute one thing and discover in the WTS own literature that they did in fact believe something else than they claim they ever said then BAM - it hits you like a train and you question everything after that.

Trying to force things into people's face? I think it's appealing because it appears like you are doing things but I don't think it's really accomplishing a great deal and may actively be reinforcing some of the WTS message about "opposers being out to get them".

Simon

I should also add that the first interaction people may have with ex-JW's is online via social media or discussion forums such as this one. They may start by trying to defend their faith. This is why I don't agree with some who think anyone who is pro-WTS should be automatically banned - how else are they going to change if not through some discussion? (that doesn't mean that we tolerate trolling though).

Many years ago someone who ran a pro-witness forum emailed me after they'd left the WTS. They said one of the things that had an impact on them was that we didn't seem "out to get them" and were discouraging attacks on their forum / encouraging respect.

It all comes down to discrediting the ideas and highlighting the actions of the WTS but not attacking the people who are still in.

StarTrekAngel

Great Simon. Thanks for your input. What if said site what exactly that? A quote or even better, just nothing but a scan of a Watchtower magazine?

I am not sure in what industry your work on, so I am going to assume is not IT or networking related. Managing this site, you are probably familiar with DNS. So in a sense, in a DNS redirect, the person is not aware they are being forced, however, I can see your point.

Lets say for example, you go to that one website we all know about and instead of reaching the site you either... get a scan of a magazine, or the magazine is downloaded to your ibooks? No other threatening message, just purely watchtower information

cappytan

I tend to agree a little with Simon's statements.

To answer your question, of the current sites out there, I would say JW facts.

If I had my choice and could guarantee my WHOIS data anonymity, I would design a website to look like JW dot ORG, different enough to skirt Intellectual Property issues, but similar enough that it won't be obvious they're in the wrong place.

Viviane

As usual, I appreciate your input.

If you do that and get caught, you will most likely be enjoying the input in the shower at PMITA prison.

StarTrekAngel

well, lets assume you don't get caught... don't forget this is just a hypothetical situation. I mentioned DNS redirect in case someone with knowledge of the matter understands what I mean. I am pretty sure the WTS has checks and balances in place for a DNS hijacking or redirect not to go unnoticed.

Brock Talon

I agree with Simon. Methods such as you are suggesting fall under the "Aggressive Activism" banner many in the ex-JW community have labeled as such and either choose to use or to avoid.

While I think it's everyone's right to deal with their ex-JW healing in their own way, (as well as how they should handle their own personal lives regarding family, JW ex-friends, etc.) I personally believe direct confrontations, "forcing" people hear or read something, shouting at people or disrupting assemblies or meetings does more harm than good in the long run. While it may get the attention of one or two on occasion, I believe it will cause many more to dig in deeper. This is because they are seeing exactly the kind of behavior the Watch Tower people have warned them about regarding "apostates".

Just ask yourself this before engaging in any particular behavior: Would that have worked on me when I was in?

If the answer is "no", then maybe it's best to find some other way.

Brock

Simon

You never know what exact presentation is going to connect with someone but something that is objective and doesn't have an obvious undertone of anger or hatred is incredibly important. You kind of don't really want too much narrative or opinion even - just the information for them to be able to draw their own conclusions, we shouldn't be telling anyone what they are supposed to believe or not.

I think jwfacts.com checks those boxes.

When I was leaving freedminds was very useful and again it was reasonable and informative. The sites that were obviously someone who was angry and appeared to have a grudge were far less compelling.

Garrett

What Simon said in his last paragraph of his first post is correct. What you would cause is all the witnesses to believe that what the governing body has been saying all along is true. That we "apostates" are the devil and out to get them. Then you will reinforce in their mind that JW is the true religion since they will see it as an attack from Satan. It's counter-intuitive in my opinion.

Besides, any open-minded witnesses that has any doubts about the religion will do his own research online and come to his own conclusions.

And if you were to go through with this, how would you plan on doing it? Cyber attack on jw.org to redirect people when they use the URL?

Then again, I may have this all wrong :P

Ex JW hacktivism

Share this