4 ms·

A lengthy article about the ban supposedly written on the day of the ban by Taylor Lorenz? Taylor Lorenz who doxxed people[1], lied about companies and people,

• ec109685 4y ago
  Mentioning the name of the person who runs an influential and news making Twitter account that brings harassment to people is reporting, not doxing.
  • softcactus 4y ago
    Exactly. Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. How do people not understand that?
    • dmatech 4y ago
      It generally means freedom from government consequences. It also generally means that third parties won't actively prevent you from speaking to people who choose to listen to you.
      • softcactus 4y ago
        Unless people decide to pressure the third party into de-platforming someone, which is their freedom of expression. I don't understand why the free speech absolutists on HN are incapable of understanding that private citizens pressuring a company to take action against a hate site is equally as much free speech as the hate site itself. By your own standards, nothing objectionable is occurring here. They just want to be contrarian.
        • dmatech 4y ago
          There's pressure, but at some point, it can cross the line into extortion (which is not protected).
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • softcactus 4y ago
            Let me know when it crosses that line then.
    • raxxorraxor 4y ago
      "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." First sentence of the definition on Wikipedia. What do you believe retaliation means in this context? If your consequence is a rebuttal or criticism, I have said nothing. Otherwise you are just wrong.
      • softcactus 4y ago
        Retaliation by the government. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private citizens censoring each other. Very telling that you find more value in the hate speech than in the value of the victims ability to protect themselves. Especially when both are equally as much free speech.
  • hhjinks 4y ago
    A reporter respects a subject's desire to be anonymous. The fact that she runs an influential and news making Twitter account means her doxing is worse. Taylor Lorenz has 337k Twitter followers, an algorithm that can broadcast her message beyond the eyes of those followers, and further reach through her column in The Washington Post. Publishing someone's identity to that many people will result in them getting harassed. Lorenz has no moral high ground to stand on, she is no better than any other doxer.
    • softcactus 4y ago
      The person she doxxed was a doxxer themselves. They gave up their privilege of anonymity when they started directing harassment to other people as a hobby. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
      • dataengineer56 4y ago
        > The person she doxxed was a doxxer themselves. This analogy is interesting because it also applies to Keffals.
        • softcactus 4y ago
          Context and intent matter. Pretending like all cases are equal only enables bullies. Doxxing an innocent person minding their own business because you don't like their race, gender orientation, or sexuality, is entirely different from doxxing someone in retaliation for their bad actions. Do you really think that doxxing and harassing schoolteachers is the same as doxxing someone who goads others into suicide?
          • irthomasthomas 4y ago
            > minding their own business
          • yanderekko 4y ago
            >Doxxing an innocent person minding their own business because you don't like their race, gender orientation, or sexuality, is entirely different from doxxing someone in retaliation for their bad actions. So we've just gone mask off to "doxxing is good when we do it."
• danielmalmer 4y ago
  What's your motivation for supporting a community that engages in organized harassment campaigns?