Jordan van den Berg's vigilante-style approach has won him fans and critics amid a housing crisis.

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.

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.netEnglish
    121·
    3 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.

      • NotBillMurray@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        3 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.netEnglish
          3·
          3 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

        • mke_geek@lemm.eeEnglish
          13·
          3 months ago

          It’s better to block people than engage in back and forth that won’t go anywhere.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          It was phrased as a conditional, they weren’t DIRECTLY saying the other person was awful, they were saying “people who do x are awful.” It leaves it open to the idea that the original commenter does not do x and is therefore not awful.

          In YOUR case, yeah, calling someone awful breaks the civility rule.