3 ms·

The HN guidelines don't discuss whether it's OK to post information about individuals like this. @dang, if you're here, can we make it explicit that this isn't

by pbiggar 12y ago

The HN guidelines don't discuss whether it's OK to post information about individuals like this. @dang, if you're here, can we make it explicit that this isn't OK on HN? [disclosure: I don't know the doxer, doxee, or Mark Suster] [edit: I thought doxing was the word for this - have clarified]

x0x0 12y ago
Calling out bad actors is now doxing? That's an impressive broadening of the definition. Are you just trying to tar behavior you don't like for some reason, or do you seriously think calling out bad actors is somehow equivalent to, eg, gamergate assholes posting Felicia Day's home address? Andrew Roman's address or ssn has not been posted; the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions.
- pbiggar 12y ago
  It seems I had the definition of doxing slightly wrong - I've updated the comment. [tangent: You've made a lot of invalid assumptions about my motives. I find it's often better to try to get on the same page as someone else before attacking them.]
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Perhaps if you would like not to be misinterpreted -- if that indeed is what it is -- you should use words that mean what you intend. Grumping that I don't understand when you used the wrong word is ... special.
- neurobro 12y ago
  > the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions. And linking his name with unverified claims about somebody's actions. Ever tried not to think of a pink elephant when someone told you not to? Try it. Don't think of a pink elephant. It works about as well as "don't let this damning claim tarnish X's reputation in your mind, because it might be wrong."
tptacek 12y ago
HN doesn't have a "no doxing" rule; that's a Redditism. That doesn't make the now-dead comment you're referring to a good one. There's something especially and ironically cowardly about using a throwaway account to level a serious accusation at a real person based solely on a couple Google searches; even if the commenter is right, they're wrong to have done that. And we don't need a magic doxing rule to see it.

by pbiggar 12y ago

x0x0 12y ago

Calling out bad actors is now doxing? That's an impressive broadening of the definition. Are you just trying to tar behavior you don't like for some reason, or do you seriously think calling out bad actors is somehow equivalent to, eg, gamergate assholes posting Felicia Day's home address? Andrew Roman's address or ssn has not been posted; the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions.

pbiggar 12y ago
It seems I had the definition of doxing slightly wrong - I've updated the comment. [tangent: You've made a lot of invalid assumptions about my motives. I find it's often better to try to get on the same page as someone else before attacking them.]
- x0x0 12y ago
  Perhaps if you would like not to be misinterpreted -- if that indeed is what it is -- you should use words that mean what you intend. Grumping that I don't understand when you used the wrong word is ... special.
neurobro 12y ago
> the only thing going on is the linking of his name with his actions. And linking his name with unverified claims about somebody's actions. Ever tried not to think of a pink elephant when someone told you not to? Try it. Don't think of a pink elephant. It works about as well as "don't let this damning claim tarnish X's reputation in your mind, because it might be wrong."

tptacek 12y ago

HN doesn't have a "no doxing" rule; that's a Redditism. That doesn't make the now-dead comment you're referring to a good one. There's something especially and ironically cowardly about using a throwaway account to level a serious accusation at a real person based solely on a couple Google searches; even if the commenter is right, they're wrong to have done that. And we don't need a magic doxing rule to see it.