3 ms·

Sure thing. The framing of your reply hinges on an unstated assertion: “It is always ‘right’ to name and shame a corporation.” I contradict that assertion in

Sure thing. The framing of your reply hinges on an unstated assertion: “It is always ‘right’ to name and shame a corporation.” I contradict that assertion in my plea, which results instead in this assumption: “Consider the ethics of the situation before naming and shaming a corporation.” Having laid out that, I will next address the literal question asked: “doxxed”, as you correctly identified when forming your reply, is used here as a shorthand for “digging up information about an entity that was intentionally withheld from you, with intent to shun and/or shame that entity once you discover who they are”. The definition you are using more restrictively says “person” rather than “entity”, which is certainly understandable. I hope this helps you comprehend my position better.

nkrisc 8y ago
It does, but I don't see how an entity such as a corporation can be "shamed." A corporation is not capable of feeling shame. The individuals who work there can, but no one is asking for any individual to be named. I suppose it could said those who work there might be indirectly shamed by association, but that's a stretch. Therefore I don't see how there's any issue in naming a corporation for their role in a situation that affected customers/users in an adverse way. Particularly since no users are bring identified either. In short, no real people are being doxxed and while a corporation might have some legal entitlements (none which apply here), it has no expectation of privacy. Let's stop treating corporations as if they were somehow people. If Rachel doesn't want to share the company that's fine, I'm sure she has her reasons, but that doesn't mean it's unethical for us to know.
- briandear 8y ago
  Even it were a person, people have a right to know. If a car blew up because of a faulty gas tank, is it “respectful” to not name the car company? If a vet killed your poodle because of negligence, is it “repectful” to not name the vet? Free markets depend on the free flow of information. “Protecting” a company that did something wrong isn’t “respectful,” it’s unethical. Knowing a company (or a person) that messed up when delivering a product or service to the public is important.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    If I post on Twitter that my car blew up with a car wreck photo from some random website that I’ve photoshopped slightly to block Tineye, the Internet will set itself aflame trying to figure out what kind of car it is, create a press firestorm around the issue, and tank the company’s stock. Trusting one person enough to go find which company they’re trying not to name only proves that you were able to find which company they were trying to keep you from naming. It doesn’t in any way provide veracity to their story, but if they’ve shorted that company’s stock, it’ll certainly provide them a profit. The issue here is that you don’t “know” anything if you _only_ dig up the company, because you don’t know anything more truthful than you did before someone told you a possibly-untrue thing. Unfortunately, people are prone to hearing “I found a likely suspect company” and respond with “therefore the story is true, burn them to the ground”. Feeding them a name to riot around by naming a probable suspect _without any proof_ does nothing to improve the story, and materially harms suspect companies, their founders, and their employees. I don’t mind if you share a company name when you’ve proven they did this, but if you can’t prove it, don’t just post a random company name on the Internet and say “I think it’s them”. That’s inciting a riot without cause, and why I encouraged otherwise here.
fergie 8y ago
Nope- there are many reasons why companies need to be held publicly accountable, and a lot of bad things that happen when they are not.
- staktrace 8y ago
  I agree with your point in general, but in this case all we have to go on is Rachel's account of what happened, which was posted to illustrate a particular point and is probably missing important context. I'm not saying the company isn't deserving of a public shaming, I'm just saying we don't know if it is deserving of a public shaming because all we have to go on is one person's humorous/scary anecdote with "some details changed". Posting the company's name at this point seems premature.

nkrisc 8y ago

It does, but I don't see how an entity such as a corporation can be "shamed." A corporation is not capable of feeling shame. The individuals who work there can, but no one is asking for any individual to be named. I suppose it could said those who work there might be indirectly shamed by association, but that's a stretch. Therefore I don't see how there's any issue in naming a corporation for their role in a situation that affected customers/users in an adverse way. Particularly since no users are bring identified either. In short, no real people are being doxxed and while a corporation might have some legal entitlements (none which apply here), it has no expectation of privacy. Let's stop treating corporations as if they were somehow people. If Rachel doesn't want to share the company that's fine, I'm sure she has her reasons, but that doesn't mean it's unethical for us to know.

briandear 8y ago
Even it were a person, people have a right to know. If a car blew up because of a faulty gas tank, is it “respectful” to not name the car company? If a vet killed your poodle because of negligence, is it “repectful” to not name the vet? Free markets depend on the free flow of information. “Protecting” a company that did something wrong isn’t “respectful,” it’s unethical. Knowing a company (or a person) that messed up when delivering a product or service to the public is important.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  If I post on Twitter that my car blew up with a car wreck photo from some random website that I’ve photoshopped slightly to block Tineye, the Internet will set itself aflame trying to figure out what kind of car it is, create a press firestorm around the issue, and tank the company’s stock. Trusting one person enough to go find which company they’re trying not to name only proves that you were able to find which company they were trying to keep you from naming. It doesn’t in any way provide veracity to their story, but if they’ve shorted that company’s stock, it’ll certainly provide them a profit. The issue here is that you don’t “know” anything if you _only_ dig up the company, because you don’t know anything more truthful than you did before someone told you a possibly-untrue thing. Unfortunately, people are prone to hearing “I found a likely suspect company” and respond with “therefore the story is true, burn them to the ground”. Feeding them a name to riot around by naming a probable suspect _without any proof_ does nothing to improve the story, and materially harms suspect companies, their founders, and their employees. I don’t mind if you share a company name when you’ve proven they did this, but if you can’t prove it, don’t just post a random company name on the Internet and say “I think it’s them”. That’s inciting a riot without cause, and why I encouraged otherwise here.

fergie 8y ago

Nope- there are many reasons why companies need to be held publicly accountable, and a lot of bad things that happen when they are not.

staktrace 8y ago
I agree with your point in general, but in this case all we have to go on is Rachel's account of what happened, which was posted to illustrate a particular point and is probably missing important context. I'm not saying the company isn't deserving of a public shaming, I'm just saying we don't know if it is deserving of a public shaming because all we have to go on is one person's humorous/scary anecdote with "some details changed". Posting the company's name at this point seems premature.