3 ms·
Sure, it always helps if everyone can agree what the subject matter is, but at its core the issue isn't whether behavior X fits someone's definition of doxxing,
by zuminator 4y ago
Sure, it always helps if everyone can agree what the subject matter is, but at its core the issue isn't whether behavior X fits someone's definition of doxxing, it's whether behavior X is illegal. Something can be illegal but not doxxing, or doxxing but not illegal.
And in the case of Musk, secondary issues arise, such as the fact that in the US lawsuits can be commenced for almost any reason, and how Musk's tremendous wealth, power, and social influence allows him to hold others hostage to his whims and malleable ethical positions.
- jacquesm 4y agoIt isn't illegal as far as I can see and it isn't doxxing as far as I understand the term. It isn't classy either, and I wouldn't do it but whoever operates those accounts should be free to do so under the rules that Elon Musk set himself a few weeks ago. The main criterium for Twitter rules changes appears to be whether or not Elon is personally inconvenienced. Which is fine by me but then he should drop the 'free speech' act and stop pretending that he understands the degree to which the former team managed to eke out the closest workable compromise on uniting free speech whilst still having a legal and functional website. That coin does not seem to have dropped yet. Principles such as absolute free speech only mean something if you uphold them even if you are personally inconvenienced.
- zuminator 4y agoI agree, except to add that I unfortunately don't think Musk's principles are very different from most people's, in that it seems that most people only care about their own free speech and are completely fine with the speech of their ideological opponents being repressed.
- ModernMech 4y agoVery true, but most people don’t brand themselves as “free speech absolutists” and make a big public spectacle about how their position is morally superior to all others.