Do you support the media doxxing regular people because of their political opinions?

[jpevans]

The person you're talking about (and implicitly defending) was making pedo-accusations about innocent people, and using her vitriol to steer conservative legislation.

And this is journalism 101. Yes, I support it. **** off.

She exposed the persons name, who was hiding behind anonymity, not her address & phone #. The Libs of tic tok bitch was trying to get people canceled for their personal lifestyle, that had nothing to do with their jobs, by Doxing them & making unfounded accusations.

 

[jpevans]

The list had their full names and employers.

The only reason to post something like that on Twitter is to give your followers a list of people to harass and try to get them fired from their jobs.

Like Chaya Raichik does on Libs of Tic Toc? The difference is that Castro is not making unfounded innuendo's, he's just posting public record. Or what should be public record if it isn't.

 

[jaypatriot]

Trump The Domestic Fascist wanted a whistleblower exposed in 2019 and the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt In 2021.

Can you name one or two more Domestic Fascists?

TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

When all else fails, people who feel insulted and devoid of a good retort resort to citing Trump as the go-to answer. You never go wrong by citing a former president you don't like.
Even judges on dumb reality shows can show their hatred of Trump by demonstrating their disgust over a contestant named Rudy Giuliani that suddenly is unmasked. NOTE: Giuliani is a staunch supporter of Trump.
TDS is alive and well 15 months after the Trump bogeyman left the White House.

 

[KingLeo]

People are entitled to express their political views.
But on the same token if you are going to publicly express those views you should not be immune to any criticism from others who do not share your views.
The two go hand in hand.
If you are not up to criticism then don't publicly express your views.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Trump lost. Losers lament. I gave you examples of unethical behavior.

TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

When all else fails, people who feel insulted and devoid of a good retort resort to citing Trump as the go-to answer. You never go wrong by citing a former president you don't like.
Even judges on dumb reality shows can show their hatred of Trump by demonstrating their disgust over a contestant named Rudy Giuliani that suddenly is unmasked. NOTE: Giuliani is a staunch supporter of Trump.
TDS is alive and well 15 months after the Trump bogeyman left the White House.

 

[jpevans]

Trump lost. Losers lament. I gave you examples of unethical behavior.

Attempted Doxing to be exact, the topic of the thread.

 

[jaypatriot]

People are entitled to express their political views.
But on the same token if you are going to publicly express those views you should not be immune to any criticism from others who do not share your views.
The two go hand in hand.
If you are not up to criticism then don't publicly express your views.

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, right?

 

[Phys251]

I suspect their was a subsidiary purpose of hoping that someone would say something that she could claim is "hypocrisy" in light of what they said or did not say in the Lorenz fuss, aka, trolling for a political *gotcha.*


______
More general comment, as stated elsewhere
_____

​

when registering the domain LibsofTikTok.us last October, she used her full name and cellphone number linked to her real estate salesperson contact information.​

​

On Saturday, software developer Travis Brown (who is working on a project with support from Prototype Fund, an organization that backs open-source projects) unearthed the account’s Twitter history and posted a thread detailing information about its profile changes.​

​

When a reporter called the phone number registered to Raichik’s real estate profile and LibofTikTok.us, the woman who answered hung up after the reporter identified herself as calling from The Washington Post. A woman at the address listed to Raichik’s name in Los Angeles declined to identify herself. On Monday night, a tweet from Glenn Greenwald confirmed the house that was visited belonged to Raichik’s family.​

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wing-media/

​

It is not "doxxing" to take note of and/or repeat information a person has made publicly available. If I were ever dumb enough to post my name and address here, it wouldn't be "doxxing" for someone to say "hey guess what everybody, [name] posts as Mr Person on this website Debatepolitics.com

On the other hand, if you hacked DP and was able to identify me with information I used to sign up and announced "hey everybody, Mr Person is [name] and lives at [address]", that would be doxxing.



Don't give out personal information if you want a given account to remain anonymous.

With an apparent intent to then troll anyone who rightly guesses that it is about Lorenz.






See? JasperL took the thread seriously and contributed his thoughts. So she trolls him. Bad faith poll indeed. Ah well.

JasperL: not only all that, but this person wasn't "doxxed". They made information publicly available, someone found it, and connected the dots. If I were to announce my BBO number, then it wouldn't be doxxing if someone went to the MA BBO site, enter that number, and say "Hey everyone, look at this! MP says he has this BBO#, and the BBO says he is [name]. Here's his phone number!"

Most of the people who are defending Raichik aren't anti-doxxing. They're anti-anti-fascist.

 

[Phys251]

People are entitled to express their political views.
But on the same token if you are going to publicly express those views you should not be immune to any criticism from others who do not share your views.
The two go hand in hand.
If you are not up to criticism then don't publicly express your views.

Or incite harassment against people whose views you disagree with, as Raichik did.

 

[Mr Person]

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, right?

Why does it need to be on other words? He said his words.

The only reason to want to put it into other words is if you think you can cleverly pidgeonhole him into an attackable position. That doesn't work.

 

[jaypatriot]

Why does it need to be on other words? He said his words.

The only reason to want to put it into other words is if you think you can cleverly pidgeonhole him into an attackable position. That doesn't work.

Tell me again, who was KingLeo talking about?

 

[Josie]

So you want them arrested, but not for their names to be revealed? Why not tell the world who this person is committing crimes? Issuing threats? Harassing people? Advancing hate, bigotry? What principle are you defending? That there is some 'right' to do these things cloaked in anonymity? Where does this right or privilege originate? What is the purpose served?

Besides, most "hate" speech is legal speech, people expressing a "political opinion" as you'd call it. White supremacy was the dominant "political opinion" in the south for about 200 years of this country. So there's nothing for police to do. The question for society is whether someone spreading bigotry, intolerance and hate, calling for people to lose their jobs, get harassed by parents and school boards, etc. are owed a duty by the "media" to be able to do so anonymously. I think the idea is absurd, personally.

Of course when they're arrested, their names are revealed.

Her name wasn't already out there. It was easily discovered, but unknown to the public until the story. And reporters go ask people questions. People are free to decline to talk.

OK, so your answer is a neo-Nazi with 500,000 followers spreading hate and bigotry against Jews is fine, so long as they stop short of openly advocating for violence? That until it reaches criminal behavior, the neo-Nazi is somehow 'owed' the ability to spread hate behind the cloak of anonymity? I'm interested in why you believe that.

No, it's not fine. Lots of legal speech is abhorrent, disgusting and are things I'd never say or support. But you still have the right to say them. No, I don't think people who say disgusting, non-violent things should be doxxed by the media or social media. Do you? For what purpose?

I'm telling you why your question as phrased is useless. I cannot possibly see how this question has a Yes, OR, No, answer. See above. The "media" don't dox regular people merely expressing their "political opinions" unless those "opinions" fall into obviously harmful actions IME. Who cares what opinions you or me express on Twitter about our political opinions? No one. Millions do it every hour of every day and have ZERO risk of being doxxed by "the media." Who cares if someone is using her platform to target individuals for firing and has 800,000 followers, and is in general working hard to generate hate and intolerance for LGBT? Lots of people, but it's not this person expressing a "political opinion" but causing harm, and attempting to marginalize an entire demographic.

Except in cases where it's illegal, which is rarely, clearly the person/group publishing the article or blog post or Tweet or FB post "defines" that. There can be no other answer, so what are you really asking.

I see. So who is asshole-y enough to have their personal identifying information blasted on social media for millions of people to see (and do with what they want) is up to each individual person making the tweet, post, blog entry, etc.? There should be no parameters there? Should this forum allow the doxxing of posters who say disgusting things?

 

[jamesrage]

dox
/däks/

verb
INFORMAL
gerund or present participle: doxxing

1. search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
   "hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures"
   
   
   Do you support the media finding and publishing phone numbers, addresses and other private information about non-famous, regular people because of their political opinions?

Of course not. I know a couple years ago or so some leftwing rags were publishing the names and addresses of firearm permit holders. I guess they were trying to tell criminals where there might be some guns to steal or to intimidate gun owners.

 

[JasperL]

Of course when they're arrested, their names are revealed.

You ignored a bunch of arguments, like this one.

"Besides, most "hate" speech is legal speech, people expressing a "political opinion" as you'd call it. White supremacy was the dominant "political opinion" in the south for about 200 years of this country. So there's nothing for police to do. The question for society is whether someone spreading bigotry, intolerance and hate, calling for people to lose their jobs, get harassed by parents and school boards, etc. are owed a duty by the "media" to be able to do so anonymously. I think the idea is absurd, personally."

No, it's not fine. Lots of legal speech is abhorrent, disgusting and are things I'd never say or support. But you still have the right to say them. No, I don't think people who say disgusting, non-violent things should be doxxed by the media or social media. Do you? For what purpose?

Again, you ignored the key point.... Seems to be a pattern.

"That until it reaches criminal behavior, the neo-Nazi is somehow 'owed' the ability to spread hate behind the cloak of anonymity? I'm interested in why you believe that."

I see. So who is asshole-y enough to have their personal identifying information blasted on social media for millions of people to see (and do with what they want) is up to each individual person making the tweet, post, blog entry, etc.? There should be no parameters there? Should this forum allow the doxxing of posters who say disgusting things?

First of all, I never said there should be "no parameters." That's a straw man. I laid out what mine would be, and you ignored those parameters.

Who sets the parameters? You've already established a principle that all legal speech should be allowed, no matter how vile or disgusting, AND under the cloak of anonymity. Now you want to put parameters on other legal speech, which is legally revealing the name behind a pseudonymous account. I don't understand your priorities here. It's clearly not defending "free speech" or else you'd allow doxxing where legal. Should government enforce these parameters or leave that up to the newspaper, online outlet?

And this forum ban hammers posters who say "disgusting" things, almost always entirely legal, protected speech. And whether the forum allows for doxxing, which is also legal speech, is determined by the owners of DP. That's exactly how it should be - exactly what I argued. For those ban decisions, it's a subjective, judgment call, based on the facts of a particular case. We leave that up to the owners and moderators - seems to work well, and you must agree since you've been on here 12 years and seen hundreds get banned.

The idea it's a black or white, yes or no, answer is absurd to me.