3 ms·

Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour. That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do

by bawolff 8mo ago

Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour. That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS. In the slang of reddit: ESH

fluoridation 8mo ago
It's neither of those. Stalking refers to persistent, unwanted, one-sided interactions with a person such as following, surveilling, calling, or sending messages or gifts. Investigating a person's past or identity doesn't involve any interaction with the physical person. Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone after having been asked to stop. Again, an investigation doesn't require any form of interaction.
- JoshTriplett 8mo ago
  > Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone No, harassment also includes persistent attempts to cause someone grief, whether or not they involve direct interactions with that person. From Wikipedia: > Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person.
  - fluoridation 8mo ago
    Doxing in the loose sense could be harassment in certain circumstances, such as if you broadcast a person's home address to an audience with the intent to cause that audience to use that address, even if the address was already out there. In that case, the problem is not the release of information, but the intent you're communicating with the release. It would be the same if you told that audience "you know guys? It's not very difficult to find jdoe's home address if you google his name. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying." Merely de-pseudonymizing a screen name may or may not be harassment. Divulging that jdoe's real name is John Doe would not have the same implications as if his name was, say, Keanu Reeves. Because the two are distinct, one can't simply replace "doxing" with "harassment".
    - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
      Generally speaking, every case I've seen of people using the term "doxing" tends to be for the case that specifically is harassment; it has the connotation of using the information, precisely because if you aren't intending to use it there's no good reason for you to have it.
      - fluoridation 8mo ago
        That's just another way the term is used incorrectly.
        JoshTriplett 8mo ago
        Language evolves. Connotation tends to become definition. Not always the only definition, but connotation becomes the "especially" or the "definition 2", and can become the primary definition over time.
        fluoridation 8mo ago
        That's not what I mean. If we agree that harassment is wrong and that doxing is not harassment (because not all doxing is harassment), then it's incorrect to say that doxing is wrong. For example, the article from the blog, even if we agree that it is doxing, isn't harassment. The person being discussed is presented in a positive light: >I for one will be buying Denis/Masha/whoever a well deserved cup of coffee. Using one term when what is meant is actually the other serves nothing but to sow confusion.
        grimgrin 8mo ago
        update the etymology then on wikipedia with your reference that current etymology is what we’re all talking about obv
        bawolff 8mo ago
        You can harass someone while discussing them in a positive light. And i don't just mean under colloquial definition, i mean under the legal definition of harrasment. In fact its fairly common for unwanted "positive" attention to be harrasment - e.g. unwanted sexual advances mostly fit that description.
wolvoleo 8mo ago
In this case archive.today has a lot of influence over the information we take in because of the rise in paywalls. They have the potential of modifying the news we absorb at scale. In that context I don't think the question ("actually, who is providing all this information to me and what interests drive them") is one that's misplaced. Maybe we shouldn't look into a gift horse's mouth but don't forget this could be a Trojan horse as well. The article brought to light some ties to Russia but probably not ties to its government and its troll farms. Rather an independent and pretty rebellious citizen. That's good to hear. And that's valuable information. I trust the site more after reading the article, not less. The article could have redacted the names they found but they were found with public sources and these sources validate the encountered information (otherwise the results could have been dismissed)

by bawolff 8mo ago

Call it stalking or harrasment if you prefer. Regardless its rude (sometimes illegal) behaviour. That's no justification for using visitors to your site to do a DDOS. In the slang of reddit: ESH

fluoridation 8mo ago

It's neither of those. Stalking refers to persistent, unwanted, one-sided interactions with a person such as following, surveilling, calling, or sending messages or gifts. Investigating a person's past or identity doesn't involve any interaction with the physical person. Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone after having been asked to stop. Again, an investigation doesn't require any form of interaction.

JoshTriplett 8mo ago
> Harassment is persistent attempts to interact with someone No, harassment also includes persistent attempts to cause someone grief, whether or not they involve direct interactions with that person. From Wikipedia: > Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person.
- fluoridation 8mo ago
  Doxing in the loose sense could be harassment in certain circumstances, such as if you broadcast a person's home address to an audience with the intent to cause that audience to use that address, even if the address was already out there. In that case, the problem is not the release of information, but the intent you're communicating with the release. It would be the same if you told that audience "you know guys? It's not very difficult to find jdoe's home address if you google his name. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying." Merely de-pseudonymizing a screen name may or may not be harassment. Divulging that jdoe's real name is John Doe would not have the same implications as if his name was, say, Keanu Reeves. Because the two are distinct, one can't simply replace "doxing" with "harassment".
  - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
    Generally speaking, every case I've seen of people using the term "doxing" tends to be for the case that specifically is harassment; it has the connotation of using the information, precisely because if you aren't intending to use it there's no good reason for you to have it.
    - fluoridation 8mo ago
      That's just another way the term is used incorrectly.
      - JoshTriplett 8mo ago
        Language evolves. Connotation tends to become definition. Not always the only definition, but connotation becomes the "especially" or the "definition 2", and can become the primary definition over time.
        fluoridation 8mo ago
        That's not what I mean. If we agree that harassment is wrong and that doxing is not harassment (because not all doxing is harassment), then it's incorrect to say that doxing is wrong. For example, the article from the blog, even if we agree that it is doxing, isn't harassment. The person being discussed is presented in a positive light: >I for one will be buying Denis/Masha/whoever a well deserved cup of coffee. Using one term when what is meant is actually the other serves nothing but to sow confusion.
        grimgrin 8mo ago
        update the etymology then on wikipedia with your reference that current etymology is what we’re all talking about obv
        bawolff 8mo ago
        You can harass someone while discussing them in a positive light. And i don't just mean under colloquial definition, i mean under the legal definition of harrasment. In fact its fairly common for unwanted "positive" attention to be harrasment - e.g. unwanted sexual advances mostly fit that description.

wolvoleo 8mo ago

In this case archive.today has a lot of influence over the information we take in because of the rise in paywalls. They have the potential of modifying the news we absorb at scale. In that context I don't think the question ("actually, who is providing all this information to me and what interests drive them") is one that's misplaced. Maybe we shouldn't look into a gift horse's mouth but don't forget this could be a Trojan horse as well. The article brought to light some ties to Russia but probably not ties to its government and its troll farms. Rather an independent and pretty rebellious citizen. That's good to hear. And that's valuable information. I trust the site more after reading the article, not less. The article could have redacted the names they found but they were found with public sources and these sources validate the encountered information (otherwise the results could have been dismissed)