4 ms·

Real-name policy doesn't really work. I've seen plenty of vile and horrible comments from people through the Facebook comment widget. And doxing is dangerous si

by marvin 13y ago

Real-name policy doesn't really work. I've seen plenty of vile and horrible comments from people through the Facebook comment widget. And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice. You don't even know if you're doxxing the right person. Extrajudicial punishment is extremely dodgy even in the cases where it is legal. And Internet anonymity serves a purpose beyond how comfortable it is, which is to allow the discussion of subjects where few people want to have their real name and picture attached. Approximately 50% of the political opinions I debate online, I would not want a prospective employer to be able to look up. I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.

rmc 13y ago
doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice Sure, doxxing (publishing someone's personal information), might be seen as "encouraging violence". But the people we're talking about doxxing are the people who make posts that are explicit calls to violence. If person A says "Heifers like her should be put down" (as in article), they are explicitly calling for murder, so why can they be upset when someone posts their personal information? It's not like doxxing calls for "putting the cow down", so it's not as bad.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  How do you know that it's the right personal information you just published? That's what due process is for - giving the accused a chance to defend himself before justice is served. Anything else is by definition vigilante justice.
  - rmc 13y ago
    Someone who posts that a fat person is a "waste of space" and should kill themselves to "spare everyone's eyes" clearly already believes in vigilante justice without due process. If you think it's OK to limit someone's freedom of speech to ban doxxing due to it's negative affects, then it's obvious that speech that says a person "should be put down" should also be banned, since that's more harmful. The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      Yes, I think that hate speech should be prosecuted. I just don't think that the internet mob makes for a good prosecution and it's even a worse judge and jury. > The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information". So in retaliation we accept that our act of doxxing might provide the details of a completely unrelated person that then suddenly has to deal with all the shit the internet mob throws at them? Or feed teenagers to the internet mob so that unto them be done what they did in a careless, stupid moment? Now that's classy. Just because other people on the internet behave like careless, blundering idiots we don't have to.
smoyer 13y ago
"And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice" Is it really? Not by definition but I'll admit that people often use doxing along with a call for vigilante justice. I wasn't proposing violence of any kind ... just that some people should be shamed using their real identity.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  By definition it is. Vigilante Justice is extrajudicial punishment of any kind, not only lynching or other forms of violence.
  - computer 13y ago
    Is there anything inherently wrong with intelligent objective "vigilante justice", especially in minor cases? Just because a judge won't look at a case doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to take action.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      Yes, there is something inherently wrong with vigilante justice. Our law system is built on the pillar of due process, which means that we have prosecutor, judge and defendant and a process in which those three parties try to get as close to the truth as possible. Each party in that process has rights and obligations - and all those rights the defendant has get thrown out the window in vigilante justice because judge, juror and executor is one and the only party deciding what they deem "the truth" and "the correct punishment." There is no defense speaking, since the defendant doesn't get heard, there's no appeal, because the punishment has already been dealt. There is no 'intelligent objective "vigilante justice"' since there is no objective all-knowing human being, this is exactly the reason that due process was established: To prevent as many human failures as possible and to reduce the damage those failures cause. Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
    - 13y ago
acdha 13y ago
> I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives. I have more optimistic take: it's a social problem so technical hacks won't work but social methods do. Investing time reinforcing the desired community behaviour does work so part of the question is really figuring out how to make that as easy as possible.

by marvin 13y ago

rmc 13y ago

doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice Sure, doxxing (publishing someone's personal information), might be seen as "encouraging violence". But the people we're talking about doxxing are the people who make posts that are explicit calls to violence. If person A says "Heifers like her should be put down" (as in article), they are explicitly calling for murder, so why can they be upset when someone posts their personal information? It's not like doxxing calls for "putting the cow down", so it's not as bad.

Xylakant 13y ago
How do you know that it's the right personal information you just published? That's what due process is for - giving the accused a chance to defend himself before justice is served. Anything else is by definition vigilante justice.
- rmc 13y ago
  Someone who posts that a fat person is a "waste of space" and should kill themselves to "spare everyone's eyes" clearly already believes in vigilante justice without due process. If you think it's OK to limit someone's freedom of speech to ban doxxing due to it's negative affects, then it's obvious that speech that says a person "should be put down" should also be banned, since that's more harmful. The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    Yes, I think that hate speech should be prosecuted. I just don't think that the internet mob makes for a good prosecution and it's even a worse judge and jury. > The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information". So in retaliation we accept that our act of doxxing might provide the details of a completely unrelated person that then suddenly has to deal with all the shit the internet mob throws at them? Or feed teenagers to the internet mob so that unto them be done what they did in a careless, stupid moment? Now that's classy. Just because other people on the internet behave like careless, blundering idiots we don't have to.

smoyer 13y ago

"And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice" Is it really? Not by definition but I'll admit that people often use doxing along with a call for vigilante justice. I wasn't proposing violence of any kind ... just that some people should be shamed using their real identity.

Xylakant 13y ago
By definition it is. Vigilante Justice is extrajudicial punishment of any kind, not only lynching or other forms of violence.
- computer 13y ago
  Is there anything inherently wrong with intelligent objective "vigilante justice", especially in minor cases? Just because a judge won't look at a case doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to take action.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    Yes, there is something inherently wrong with vigilante justice. Our law system is built on the pillar of due process, which means that we have prosecutor, judge and defendant and a process in which those three parties try to get as close to the truth as possible. Each party in that process has rights and obligations - and all those rights the defendant has get thrown out the window in vigilante justice because judge, juror and executor is one and the only party deciding what they deem "the truth" and "the correct punishment." There is no defense speaking, since the defendant doesn't get heard, there's no appeal, because the punishment has already been dealt. There is no 'intelligent objective "vigilante justice"' since there is no objective all-knowing human being, this is exactly the reason that due process was established: To prevent as many human failures as possible and to reduce the damage those failures cause. Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
  - 13y ago

acdha 13y ago

> I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives. I have more optimistic take: it's a social problem so technical hacks won't work but social methods do. Investing time reinforcing the desired community behaviour does work so part of the question is really figuring out how to make that as easy as possible.