Hey, at least you can reasonably argue that the political content has been headed downhill since the more aggressive days of the past. Do we see wikileaks or the likes anymore? Not really.
Without direct action it's just nerds reading out their blog posts about politics, which couldn't be less interesting.
There has been plenty of direct action in recent years, but I can't really think of any on a global scale. Lots of smaller things on a German level, like journalists reporting about infiltrating a Great Replacement conference hosted by the second biggest political party here.
Sure, but it is unarguably much more boring stuff than it was years ago. I attend almost every Congress with a variety of groups, and there's certainly been a culture shift over the years from lots of anarchists who had no qualms with breaking the law to much more corporate scaredy-cats.
Congress seems to keep growing so perhaps this is just serving a broader audience. But knowing a lot of long-time attendees, I'm certainly not alone in thinking Congress is starting to be less interesting than it used to be. I'm certainly not trying to say the event sucks though, there's still a plenty of interesting stuff happening.
Back in the old days, you could sit down at a table in the hackcenter and do stuff that was more of the exploratory pentesting kind. Because everyone around you understood. Because there were strict "no-photos" policies in place. Because all people were technical and in it primarily for the technical challenge.
Nowadays you cannot do that anymore, because most visitors are non-technical. Nobody respects the photo policy. Everyone judges your actions through their political lens. Instead all the "action" happens elsewhere and CCC became much more about social stuff, talking and politics. And of course about policing and judging other peoples' politics.
I'm not just referring to the talks, but the whole event. But we used to have groups like wikileaks heavily featured, they certainly weren't worried about too many eyeballs.
>like journalists reporting about infiltrating a Great Replacement conference hosted by the second biggest political party here.
And making stuff up that was never talked about there to start a political movement to get that party banned? Yeah nice democracy and journalism there.
Actually I can't ask a court whether you were at that conference without knowing your legal identity - care to share? And why should I expect the court to have a complete list of who was there, and to answer questions about that list? Seems much easier to ask you, and it's strange you don't want to answer.
What are you talking about? Pure nonsense. Discussions about "great replacement" never happened, that's an undeniable fact proven by court records and news media are not allowed to repeat these claims (324 O 439/24, 324 O 524/24, 7 W 78/24).
You might want to check your own source there. Seems to be the opposite of what you claim. The complaints were dismissed and the media is allowed to report.
You might want to read the post again, the court claimed it not as a journalistic news article but as an opinion piece. And it's not the final verdict.
Without direct action it's just nerds reading out their blog posts about politics, which couldn't be less interesting.