4 ms·

So you're saying releasing the names of trolls who doxxed people is not funny?

by mavhc 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 5y ago
The parent post seems to be saying that employers firing someone for their disagreeable political actions (at least outside of their workplace) is wrong. Agitating contrary to the majority sociopolitical opinion should not make one unemployable; Firing people for inappropriate or immoral political opinion is not new, USA has already been there with e.g. Hoover's Red scare and the 1980s "Moral majority", but in hindsight it seems quite clear that this approach was wrong at least back in those years when it was targeted by the right wing towards the [USA-]left.
- mavhc 5y ago
  It's not a political opinion though, that's the point. No one's firing him for saying that taxes are at the wrong level.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I'm not sure about what exactly he's been saying and I don't really care to read that because it's likely to be stupid, but I'd consider even stupid and extreme opinions and suggestions (in both directions!) on public health policy, pandemic solutions, elections, geopolitics, immigration policy, religion, human rights, LGBT rights, workers rights, voting rights, socioeconomic equality, affirmative action, education policy, gun policy, healthcare, reproductive care, etc all as political opinions. Crimes, harassment and libel are another issue, but for that we generally want a legal process to determine the guilt and appropriate punishment; simply firing accused suspects is not a proper response because it's not sufficient if he's guilty and far too much if he's not.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      If he was wrongly fired he can fight that in court. Sane public health policy: X is more dangerous that Y. Insane publish health policy: secret government fake pandemic
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        There's nothing to fight in court, in USA it's completely legal to fire someone for their political beliefs in the "at will employment" states. The argument against similar actions during Red Scare and Moral Majority is not that they were illegal but that now in hindsight we see that they were wrong, despite fitting the governing moral/political desires of the time, so similar acts should be avoided in future and perhaps even restricted, in which case there would appear a way to fight this in court.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        mavhc 5y ago
        How many years before we realise that denying the holocaust wasn't wrong? The problem with being fired isn't because of views then, you'd think people with views that would get them fired would be working to get those laws changed.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        My position is that the society should decide if something (e.g. denying the holocaust) is punishable. If it is, then we should implement laws against it (as e.g. Germany has done) and punish people for it after establishing their guilt with due process and with the level of the punishment we collectively have decided. And if it is not, well, then people shouldn't be punished until the laws do get changed. I.e. I'm think that making someone unemployable or outcast as a harsh (and perhaps even "cruel and unusual") punishment which should happen only for things the society has explicitly forbidden, and after we have properly established that the accused is actually guilty. Obviously, it's not the situation right now in USA (at least not in the at-will states), where employers have a wide (IMHO too wide) discretion of what they will tolerate for non-job-related acts of employees after work; some will fire antivaxxers, some will fire pro-vaxxers; some will fire holocaust deniers; some will fire people for having an OnlyFans account; etc. (and, crucially, they'll fire them for assuming they are like this, which won't always be true). IMHO this discretion needs to stop, as it the case in some countries with different employment laws. And if we do want to have a harsher treatment for some of those things (e.g. holocaust denial is a good example) than for others, then that distinction should be decided in laws by the whole society, not unilaterally by company owners.
zpeti 5y ago
Every single person who ever did business with Epik and has had their details released is a doxxing troll? Really?
- Arnt 5y ago
  Your sentence has two clauses: "did business with Epik" and "had their details released". AFAICT, the people who have been combing through that database and releasing details on people on the net, in a readable format have been selective about who they look for and release details about. So the answer (still AFAICT) is yes, if by release you mean in a human-friendly and/or googleable manner. If, on the other hand, you consider the dump itself to be releasing details, no matter how difficult it is to read, then the answer is no. But that seems a rather pedantic, otherworldly no.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    I want to add to this. Sometimes governments or other organisations that are required to publish things choose to publish bad news late on Friday before a three-day weekend, or on another day when most people won't notice and the publication will be ineffectual. In my heart I don't consider that publication. It is the minimum required by law, but in my heart I don't see it as real. I suspect that most people feel as I do. Because of that, I also don't see publishing Epik's customer list as a 150GB database dump as real publication. Having to downloading 150GB, loading it into the right DBMS and figuring out the schema is enough to keep the data away from the general public. De jure it's public but de facto it's buried.
- mavhc 5y ago
  No, they're just idiots who signed up to a hosting company run by dodgy people. Who knew that people who love Nazis aren't the smartest people. The ones who had their details released by the newspaper are the trolls

So you're saying releasing the names of trolls who doxxed people is not funny?

by mavhc 5y ago

So you're saying releasing the names of trolls who doxxed people is not funny?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PeterisP 5y ago

The parent post seems to be saying that employers firing someone for their disagreeable political actions (at least outside of their workplace) is wrong. Agitating contrary to the majority sociopolitical opinion should not make one unemployable; Firing people for inappropriate or immoral political opinion is not new, USA has already been there with e.g. Hoover's Red scare and the 1980s "Moral majority", but in hindsight it seems quite clear that this approach was wrong at least back in those years when it was targeted by the right wing towards the [USA-]left.

mavhc 5y ago
It's not a political opinion though, that's the point. No one's firing him for saying that taxes are at the wrong level.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I'm not sure about what exactly he's been saying and I don't really care to read that because it's likely to be stupid, but I'd consider even stupid and extreme opinions and suggestions (in both directions!) on public health policy, pandemic solutions, elections, geopolitics, immigration policy, religion, human rights, LGBT rights, workers rights, voting rights, socioeconomic equality, affirmative action, education policy, gun policy, healthcare, reproductive care, etc all as political opinions. Crimes, harassment and libel are another issue, but for that we generally want a legal process to determine the guilt and appropriate punishment; simply firing accused suspects is not a proper response because it's not sufficient if he's guilty and far too much if he's not.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    If he was wrongly fired he can fight that in court. Sane public health policy: X is more dangerous that Y. Insane publish health policy: secret government fake pandemic
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      There's nothing to fight in court, in USA it's completely legal to fire someone for their political beliefs in the "at will employment" states. The argument against similar actions during Red Scare and Moral Majority is not that they were illegal but that now in hindsight we see that they were wrong, despite fitting the governing moral/political desires of the time, so similar acts should be avoided in future and perhaps even restricted, in which case there would appear a way to fight this in court.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mavhc 5y ago
        How many years before we realise that denying the holocaust wasn't wrong? The problem with being fired isn't because of views then, you'd think people with views that would get them fired would be working to get those laws changed.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        My position is that the society should decide if something (e.g. denying the holocaust) is punishable. If it is, then we should implement laws against it (as e.g. Germany has done) and punish people for it after establishing their guilt with due process and with the level of the punishment we collectively have decided. And if it is not, well, then people shouldn't be punished until the laws do get changed. I.e. I'm think that making someone unemployable or outcast as a harsh (and perhaps even "cruel and unusual") punishment which should happen only for things the society has explicitly forbidden, and after we have properly established that the accused is actually guilty. Obviously, it's not the situation right now in USA (at least not in the at-will states), where employers have a wide (IMHO too wide) discretion of what they will tolerate for non-job-related acts of employees after work; some will fire antivaxxers, some will fire pro-vaxxers; some will fire holocaust deniers; some will fire people for having an OnlyFans account; etc. (and, crucially, they'll fire them for assuming they are like this, which won't always be true). IMHO this discretion needs to stop, as it the case in some countries with different employment laws. And if we do want to have a harsher treatment for some of those things (e.g. holocaust denial is a good example) than for others, then that distinction should be decided in laws by the whole society, not unilaterally by company owners.

zpeti 5y ago

Every single person who ever did business with Epik and has had their details released is a doxxing troll? Really?

Arnt 5y ago
Your sentence has two clauses: "did business with Epik" and "had their details released". AFAICT, the people who have been combing through that database and releasing details on people on the net, in a readable format have been selective about who they look for and release details about. So the answer (still AFAICT) is yes, if by release you mean in a human-friendly and/or googleable manner. If, on the other hand, you consider the dump itself to be releasing details, no matter how difficult it is to read, then the answer is no. But that seems a rather pedantic, otherworldly no.
- Arnt 5y ago
  I want to add to this. Sometimes governments or other organisations that are required to publish things choose to publish bad news late on Friday before a three-day weekend, or on another day when most people won't notice and the publication will be ineffectual. In my heart I don't consider that publication. It is the minimum required by law, but in my heart I don't see it as real. I suspect that most people feel as I do. Because of that, I also don't see publishing Epik's customer list as a 150GB database dump as real publication. Having to downloading 150GB, loading it into the right DBMS and figuring out the schema is enough to keep the data away from the general public. De jure it's public but de facto it's buried.
mavhc 5y ago
No, they're just idiots who signed up to a hosting company run by dodgy people. Who knew that people who love Nazis aren't the smartest people. The ones who had their details released by the newspaper are the trolls