Frankly, I think you’re giving Clymer’s rant more thought than it deserves. It is incoherent.

The next line:

So, yes… while it’s a bummer to see privacy violated, I’m not exactly inspired to “join the cause”.

Makes me think he’s not referring to the hackers in that line. If anything, that would imply that he was viciously against the hackers, but apparently he thinks of the privacy violations more as a “bummer.” And if anything, that would inspire him to “join the cause” for privacy, because it’s against those pathetic dudebros.

So no, I don’t think that’s what Charles meant at all. When he refers to loss of male entitlement, he’s referring to cheaters no longer being able to hide their cheating. That’s it.

And “this whole Ashley Madison fiasco is simply another illustration of male entitlement and rage over the loss of that entitlement” is frankly comical

Isn’t this a reference to the hackers themselves? Angry dudebros who hacked the website because it was a “scam”? That the non-existent female users warranted publishing all the data? What the women and victims wanted were irrelevant to the hackers.

And isn’t he an internet privacy activist? I guess the “activist” part is debatable, but isn’t anyone who is against the sharing of such pictures precisely an internet privacy activist? Like they’re literally advocating for privacy on the internet.

And “this whole Ashley Madison fiasco is simply another illustration of male entitlement and rage over the loss of that entitlement” is frankly comical. This assumes all sorts of bizarre things, like women want the entire world to know that their husband tried to cheat on them. If anything this generalization shows a mindset ruled by tribalism, rather than any kind of sense of privacy. It’s as if he only cares about privacy if it’s nudes of women on the internet? Like really? That’s not impressive. That’s an incredibly narrow focus of internet privacy.