412

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

submitted 6 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

60 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 6 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 6 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 6 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.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The quotes in here were indeed horseshit, but voting and donating (plus volunteering!), at least, work pretty well. I don't want to pick a fight with you, but sometimes boring is good. Shit, even insurgencies get pretty paperwork-heavy at any kind of scale.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 14 points 6 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 83 points 6 months ago

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

[-] SGG@lemmy.world 33 points 6 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.

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago

He's encouraging squatting, which is stealing. He's an awful person.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 37 points 6 months ago

Found the landlord.

If there is an empty house,and they aren’t doing damage, no harm no foul.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago

Well, it’s trespassing, but I’d argue it should be a crime to own a house and leave it empty. They should have it rented at least.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It is a crime, a crime against humanity. It’s just not a crime recognized in most legal systems.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago

Having more than you need of anything, while other people have so little they are on the street, go hungry, or die should be a crime that is punished.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Forcing bad landlords to fix their properties, go for it.

Squatting yeah no. Get the f out

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

What's the harm in squatting, as long as they aren't damaging the property, and the property is well and truly vacant?

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

If by definition of truly vacant you mean

No one is knocking on the door saying hey get out, and there is reasonably no one going to come knocking on the door... Then yeah fine it's empty. Then I don't care. But if anyone who has the title is saying get out then yeah get out.

If there is someone who has the title says get out, and the squatter doesn't leave, it's basically theft of property.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

How is it theft of property? Theft usually involves taking something material away from someone. If the property owner has left their property vacant, having a squatter there doesn't change anything. They've gone from making no money on their vacant property to... still not making money on their property.

And don't say "the squatter is preventing the property owner from making future profit off of the property", because now you're not talking about theft. Profits that don't exist yet can't be stolen.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If I have a piece of property and somebody moves in there, squats, they are basically preventing me from using that piece of property as I choose. Yes I could go in there anyways but let’s be honest how would I actually use it in the way that I want if they are in there? How would I lay out financial documents on the kitchen table to do my bookkeeping? Knowing that someone else is in there could easily take pictures of it? That makes no sense. They’ve effectively taken the property from me and prevented me from using it as I choose. That is effectively theft. No they didn’t pick up a pen from you and take it away. No they didn’t take a phone and take it away. But they have effectively taken my property.

If they insist on living there for six months, how am I going to be there for six months? Realistically. Think about it. So yeah it is that you may not agree with the term of that. But that to me is just irrelevant. In the eyes of the law it’s leaning more and more towards unlawful usage of the property. Which is why the laws are being wrote to remove squatter rights.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

If a squatter is squatting somewhere you want to live, sure, yeah, you can't live there. Just like you can't live there if someone else is already renting it.

The way you're describing it, it seems like to you there's no functional difference between someone paying to live in a property you want, vs. squatting in a property you want. You're looking through your own personal lense only, and consider things that inconvenience you as "evil". It's a prime example of the "fuck you I got mine" mentality.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

No if they are paying the person who holds the title to be in there, then there is no squatting. That is legal usage. The title holder gave permission for the user to be there for a given period of time. Big difference between renting and squatting

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

But the inconvenience to you is the same, and that seems to be the thing you have a problem with.

You're taking issue with squatting, even though the effect on you is exactly the same as someone legally renting - ie, you can't occupy that property. So what's the big deal? How does a squatter steal from you, and a renter doesn't? If the only difference is some legal definitions, maybe the two aren't that different after all.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If you haven't figured it out by now I'd say that's by choice not because you don't understand.

One is someone living there with permission (renter) one is there without permission(Squatting). Squatting is theft. Have a nice day. I'm out.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Thanks, you have a good one too

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 15 points 6 months ago

How is this stealing? At most it's prohibiting passive income on capital investment.

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Stealing is taking someone's property without permission. That's what squatting is. By encouraging squatting, this person is encouraging stealing and that makes them an awful person.

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Holy shit, they took the whole house? That's impressive!

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 2 points 6 months ago

Honestly if I ever own a house and someone steals it without me noticing... They can keep it.

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 4 points 6 months ago

Squatting is not "taking property" especially if the property in question is vacant. The property is still there and will stay there when the squatters leave.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it's not an ideal situation; in an ideal society "squatting" shouldn't occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone's property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

[-] mke_geek@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

No name calling on this sub. You are blocked.

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Holy shit my guy. "Someone vaguely disagreed with me and used the same verbiage I used on someone else, time to block them". Touch grass, please, for your sake as much as ours.

[-] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

Ah, but you see, it's not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we're suckers for not using it against them first. /s

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 6 months ago

There's entire countries that are on land that wasn't originally theirs. Stealing isn't sufficient for evil on it's own.

[-] duckef@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I think you dropped your /s

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 months ago

Illegally appropriating access is close enough.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 71 points 6 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 6 months ago

Is Australia inside the world, though? 🤔

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 6 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 6 months ago

I thought it was underneath.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 6 months ago

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

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Its natural predator is the cartographer

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 months ago

gigachad.gif

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

Hopefully it ends up better than it did for friendlyjordies.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024

412 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39000 readers

2101 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.