404

Jordan van den Berg: The 'Robin Hood' TikToker taking on Australian landlords (www.bbc.com)

submitted 8 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Three years ago, lawyer Jordan van den Berg was an obscure TikTok creator who made videos that mocked real estate agents.

But today the 28-year-old is one of the most high-profile activists in Australia.

Posting under the moniker Purple Pingers, Mr van den Berg has been taking on the nation's housing crisis by highlighting shocking renting conditions, poor behaviour from landlords, and what he calls government failures.

It is his vigilante-style approach - which includes helping people find vacant homes to squat in, and exposing bad rentals in a public database - that has won over a legion of fans.

Some have dubbed him the Robin Hood of renters.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 96 points 8 months ago

"If this energy was directed to our MPs and senators, maybe there would be sufficient funding and resources to resolve public housing waitlists," said a spokesperson for the Real Estate Institute of Australia.

This is the most aggravating part of the article for me. This will force policy change way faster than “putting that energy into pushing representatives.” Which is twice removed from the issue.

He’s helping people find shelter, AND he’s causing a huge stir, taking it worldwide, and making news. THIS is the type of direct action that we need.

Less incrementalism, more fucking over landlords and making the ownership class uncomfortable.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 8 months ago

Bugging politicians can work, if you're sufficiently relevant to re-election. This dude has achieved that relevance very well by doing what he's doing.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

Sure, but what this stupid fucking association of landlords or whatever is saying is that he needs to “work within the system.” They mean “write to your representatives, vote, donate to politicians, etc.” It’s complete horseshit. Because that clearly hasn’t worked. They don’t want it to work. These people lobby (read: bribe) to make sure the laws keep shifting in their favor. Which is exactly the point. Citizens trying to influence policy are very limited and removed a few steps from the actual decision making and decision makers. They want it to stay that way, because they get to write laws, lobby directly, spend face-to-face time with these people, call their cell phones because they’re large donors, and the winds are blowing ever harder in their favor. Their power grows exponentially while ours dwindles and we become exponentially LESS powerful as lawmakers become more and more insulated from the people they’re supposed to serve.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

The number of MPs who own investment properties means that this IS going directly to the source, but it's doing it in a manner that they can't fob off, ignore, or form a committee about.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 81 points 8 months ago

I’m not sure if Robin Hood fits. He’s not stealing. Either way, fuck predatory landlords.

[-] SGG@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

Given the abstract nature of a lot of the economy these days (which unsurprisingly benefits those with wealth) it's debatable if it fits to be honest. I would lean more towards yes. They would argue that by exposing bad conditions, helping people lower the cost, causing a rental to go empty, or whatever else means they aren't getting the money they feel entitled to.

The same kind of arguments are often used when corporations argue that piracy is stealing. All that has happened is an unauthorised copy of a movie/etc had been created. Yet that is called stealing and they try and fine people sometimes thousands more than what a legal copy would cost.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 months ago

Illegally appropriating access is close enough.

load more comments (45 replies)

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 75 points 8 months ago

LOL - Reported as "not world news", where the definition is "news outside the US."

Being as this is Australia and Australia is outside the US...

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

Is Australia inside the world, though? 🤔

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 8 months ago

It's more ON the world. I think it's kinda like the world's cummerbund, with Antarctica being either the world's pants or slippers.

[-] Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

I thought it was underneath.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 8 months ago

That's New Zealand you're thinking of, it's only there some of the time.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (31 replies)

[-] PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 months ago

gigachad.gif

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago

Hopefully it ends up better than it did for friendlyjordies.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024

404 points (94.9% liked)

World News

39364 readers

2234 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.