3 ms·

> But why should the right to dox be the default? Why shouldn't respecting everyone's privacy be the default? If there is no danger (legal (i.e. whistleblower

> But why should the right to dox be the default? Why shouldn't respecting everyone's privacy be the default? If there is no danger (legal (i.e. whistleblower sources) or physical) then accountability for people to stand by their /should/ reduce 'fake news' where people can just say whatever they like. Don't forget that we've just come from a world where the US president would continually cite "people are saying". Which people? Name them.

JamesBarney 6y ago
But the nytimes wasn't try to hold him him accountable. They were writing a positive piece about his blog. The question isn't should you dox your enemies who you are trying to hold accountable. It's should organizations just default to doxing anyone online they write about even when their full name has no relevance to the story and that persons asks them not to? Should it be illegal? No. Was the NYT a dick about it? Yes
pdonis 6y ago
> accountability for people to stand by their /should/ reduce 'fake news' where people can just say whatever they like The way you do that is to look at what sources the person gives for the claims they are making. Not by revealing personal details that the person has chosen to keep private, and which are irrelevant to the claims they are making. Scott Alexander was pretty meticulous about citing sources, so to say he should have been doxxed to "preserve accountability" is way off the mark.
- fnord123 6y ago
  I was responding very specifically to "But why should the right to dox be the default? Why shouldn't respecting everyone's privacy be the default?". I'm not speaking in the context of the article because the article depends on a whole bunch of other articles that were deleted, not linked to, or not published: > I think the New York Times wanted to write a fairly boring article about me, but *some guideline said they had to reveal subjects' real identities, if they knew them, unless the subject was in one of a few predefined sympathetic categories (eg sex workers)*. I did get to talk to a few sympathetic people from the Times, who were pretty confused about whether such a guideline existed, and certainly it's honored more in the breach than in the observance (eg Virgil Texas). But *I still think the most likely explanation for what happened was that there was a rule sort of like that on the books, some departments and editors followed it more slavishly than others, and I had the bad luck to be assigned to a department and editor that followed it a lot.* That's all. Anyway, *they did the right thing and decided not to publish the article*, so I have no remaining beef with them.
  - curtainsforus 6y ago
    Stopping people from putting out Fake News is less important than protecting people from having their lives ruined by a mob for daring to voice heterodox opinions. Anonymity and Pseudonymity protect the weak, not the strong- in that they protect from punishment.
    - fnord123 6y ago
      That's supposed to be covered by the policy of protecting sex workers and the like. I think we all agree with you in spirit and we only differ in how we rate the implementation.
      - curtainsforus 6y ago
        But the point is that it the default shouldn't be being NYT exposing you, unless you can make a appeal that puts in you one of the Socially Correct Categories (according to the NYT!). I want the default to be revulsion for doxing, and widely-used strong pseudonymity or anonymity, whereas from what you've said it seem you'd rather people's real names were out there by default.
        fnord123 6y ago
        Fundamentally the journalist has to make a call to dox or not. People who took advantage of tax havens as described in the Panama Papers - good to dox. People who obtained the Panama Papers - bad to dox. People who fund special interest groups trying to support $GOOD_GOVERNMENT dissidents (e.g. jan6 activists) - good to dox. People who fund special interest groups to support $BAD_GOVERNMENT dissidents - bad to dox. There is a great deal of taste involved. Sometimes they will get it wrong. In the example we have in front of us, it worked itself out in the end. In the case of e.g. _why, it did not work and he supposedly quit the Ruby community. If you are a dissident and want to remain anonymous I urge you to not rely on anyone to keep your information secret for you. Use signal, tor, etc.

JamesBarney 6y ago

But the nytimes wasn't try to hold him him accountable. They were writing a positive piece about his blog. The question isn't should you dox your enemies who you are trying to hold accountable. It's should organizations just default to doxing anyone online they write about even when their full name has no relevance to the story and that persons asks them not to? Should it be illegal? No. Was the NYT a dick about it? Yes

pdonis 6y ago

> accountability for people to stand by their /should/ reduce 'fake news' where people can just say whatever they like The way you do that is to look at what sources the person gives for the claims they are making. Not by revealing personal details that the person has chosen to keep private, and which are irrelevant to the claims they are making. Scott Alexander was pretty meticulous about citing sources, so to say he should have been doxxed to "preserve accountability" is way off the mark.

fnord123 6y ago
I was responding very specifically to "But why should the right to dox be the default? Why shouldn't respecting everyone's privacy be the default?". I'm not speaking in the context of the article because the article depends on a whole bunch of other articles that were deleted, not linked to, or not published: > I think the New York Times wanted to write a fairly boring article about me, but *some guideline said they had to reveal subjects' real identities, if they knew them, unless the subject was in one of a few predefined sympathetic categories (eg sex workers)*. I did get to talk to a few sympathetic people from the Times, who were pretty confused about whether such a guideline existed, and certainly it's honored more in the breach than in the observance (eg Virgil Texas). But *I still think the most likely explanation for what happened was that there was a rule sort of like that on the books, some departments and editors followed it more slavishly than others, and I had the bad luck to be assigned to a department and editor that followed it a lot.* That's all. Anyway, *they did the right thing and decided not to publish the article*, so I have no remaining beef with them.
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  Stopping people from putting out Fake News is less important than protecting people from having their lives ruined by a mob for daring to voice heterodox opinions. Anonymity and Pseudonymity protect the weak, not the strong- in that they protect from punishment.
  - fnord123 6y ago
    That's supposed to be covered by the policy of protecting sex workers and the like. I think we all agree with you in spirit and we only differ in how we rate the implementation.
    - curtainsforus 6y ago
      But the point is that it the default shouldn't be being NYT exposing you, unless you can make a appeal that puts in you one of the Socially Correct Categories (according to the NYT!). I want the default to be revulsion for doxing, and widely-used strong pseudonymity or anonymity, whereas from what you've said it seem you'd rather people's real names were out there by default.
      - fnord123 6y ago
        Fundamentally the journalist has to make a call to dox or not. People who took advantage of tax havens as described in the Panama Papers - good to dox. People who obtained the Panama Papers - bad to dox. People who fund special interest groups trying to support $GOOD_GOVERNMENT dissidents (e.g. jan6 activists) - good to dox. People who fund special interest groups to support $BAD_GOVERNMENT dissidents - bad to dox. There is a great deal of taste involved. Sometimes they will get it wrong. In the example we have in front of us, it worked itself out in the end. In the case of e.g. _why, it did not work and he supposedly quit the Ruby community. If you are a dissident and want to remain anonymous I urge you to not rely on anyone to keep your information secret for you. Use signal, tor, etc.