According to Kotaku, at the recent Chaos Communication Congress hacking conference in Hamburg, an anonymous hacker using the pseudonym Martha Root gave a presentation and then live-deleted the servers for three white supremacist websites: WhiteDate, WhiteChild, and WhiteDeal. Root, who was dressed in a show-accurate Pink Power Ranger costume during the demo, also published personal user data from the sites, including profile images. The sites are dedicated to racist matchmaking, racist egg/sperm donation, and a racist labor marketplace. Root revealed that 86% of the users on these platforms were men, with women making up only 14%. The administrator of the targeted sites confirmed the attack on X, calling it an act of “cyberterrorism.”
The Hack and the Data
So, how does something like this even happen? The technical specifics aren’t fully detailed, but the implication is pretty clear. These sites were almost certainly running on vulnerable, off-the-shelf software—likely WordPress, as Root’s jab about “mastering to host WordPress” suggests. It’s a stark reminder that ideological fervor doesn’t translate to technical competence. The fact that a single hacker could take down multiple sites in a live demo points to shockingly poor security hygiene. I mean, you’re running a controversial, hate-based operation on the open web. Wouldn’t securing it be your absolute first priority? Apparently not.
The Ethics of Doxing
Here’s where it gets ethically messy. Root didn’t just delete the sites; they published user data. Now, they held back the most sensitive stuff like emails and passwords “for now,” which is a calculated move. But publishing profile images and info is a form of doxing. Is it justified against people participating in explicitly racist ecosystems? A lot of folks will say yes, arguing that public shaming and consequences are a deterrent. Others will warn about vigilantism and the potential for mistaken identity or escalation. It’s a classic hacker ethics debate. The hacker is making a very public, very theatrical statement: if you build a hateful platform, you might just find your data center wiped by someone in spandex.
A Telling Demographic Split
Let’s talk about that user split for a second. 86% men, 14% women. That’s not just skewed; it’s a canyon. Root’s joke about the Smurfs village looking like a feminist utopia is painfully accurate. It tells you a lot about who’s driving the demand for these “racial purity” services. It’s not a broad-based movement. It seems to be heavily fueled by a specific, online, and very lonely demographic of men. That demographic reality is probably more damaging to their “master race” mythology than any hack could be. It paints a picture of a movement struggling to attract even the very people it claims to want to protect, which is pretty ironic.
Theatre vs. Lasting Impact
Now, the big question: does this actually matter in the long run? The sites will probably pop back up on new servers, maybe with slightly better security. The core ideology isn’t hacked away with a keyboard. But that’s missing the point. The power here is in the spectacle. A hacker in a Pink Ranger suit, on a major stage, humiliating these groups in the most technically basic way possible. It’s a morale blow. It broadcasts their incompetence to the world and exposes their users to scrutiny. In the endless, grim cat-and-mouse game of online extremism, sometimes a very public, very embarrassing punch to the nose has value all its own. And this one was delivered with flair.
