Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Doxxing is always weird because there is no real violence until there is – it’s all implied violence – so online trolls can hide behind the facade of “I didn’t touch you!” The people signing the doc are already public, a truck roaming around with their face on it is just organized harassment at that point.

Didn’t think I would see a pro-doxxing content here, but what do I know.

I don’t think publicizing someone’s views (if you think them repugnant) is implied violence at all, nor is it harassment.

Perhaps they want their community to shun them, which is a good and noble resolution to the general problem of someone exhibiting abhorrent behavior (note that I am not of an opinion on whether or not this original behavior is abhorrent).

They doxxed themselves when they published their views. The truck people are simply amplifying their statements.

> Perhaps they want their community to shun them, which is a good and noble resolution to the general problem of someone exhibiting abhorrent behavior

We can make them walk around wearing pieces of flair so we can easily identify them.

I see why you may want to tug at this thread but I wouldn't.

People driving around in trucks identifying you isn't going to play out in favor of whatever zionist fantasies you may hold lol. The adults in the room saying walk away "get it".

> We can make them

The people doing the amplification here aren’t forcing anyone to do anything, which is a critical difference.

> whatever zionist fantasies you may hold

If I were forced to pick a side in this battle, I think the result would be the opposite of what you expect.

That said, I fully support the right of their opponents to yell loudly (with this truck) about their discontent. It’s peaceful protest of the best kind.

> The people doing the amplification here aren’t forcing anyone to do anything, which is a critical difference.

Cool, maybe we can have a robot walk around behind them holding a sign? Where do you draw the line?

You don’t think if Elon Musk tweets tomorrow “@polygamous_bat doesn’t like X, or dogecoins! His phone number is 0123 and address is XYZ”, that’s harassment? None of what he would say is false, but by amplifying it to his audience of trolls he just increases the chance of something “accidentally” happening to me.

Same here. Whether you say something or not, putting your face on a billboard is guaranteed to attract crazies. If your opponent is spending a million dollar to give that treatment to literal college kids, it doesn’t take a genius to see who the evil is.

Yes, it is quite obvious that the evil are the “crazies” (your term) that see a billboard and decide to do someone harm (and decidedly not the publisher of the billboard).

Yes of course, it lets you wash your hand off of all responsibility.

Reminder to anyone else who is not so trigger happy to dox people: Stochastic Terrorism exists [0] and so does the tale of the “Meddlesome priest”[1]. It’s a trick as old as time, you’re not doing anything novel or clever, and your tactics are obvious to everyone.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_t...

When the king expresses by implication that he wants someone executed it’s very different from doing accurate and truthful reporting of factual information.

You have a long way to go to prove violent intent. Stochastic terrorism is a deniable order of violence but I think there is a pretty clear line between factual reporting and an implied order to commit violence (cf McVeigh handing out business cards with Lon Horiuchi’s home address on them at gun shows).

People are responsible for violent intent. People without violent intent are in no way responsible for the violent initiatives of crazy assholes they may provide with information.

PS: when I google “Lon Horiuchi”, it autocompletes “where is Lon Horiuchi now”. Is Google advocating for violence too? Intent matters.

Truck doxxer maybe won't be arrested, but a defamation/libel civil case is likely. Especially with now CEOs calling for blacklisting. Ones reputation can be totally destroyed being falsely accused.

Emotions are high right now, but destroying more innocent lives isn't the answer.

Being 100% factually accurate in your statements is an airtight defense against libel in the USA.

I think you missed the part about a student no longer attending Harvard nor being part of the organization.

Great! If you read the article instead of trying to incite a flame war you would know that they have already doxxed people falsely, and so your statement doesn’t apply at all.

It’s also an anonymous source to a student newspaper. I wouldn’t exactly hold them to the highest editorial standard. They just they confirmed they saw emails which anyone could have sent. Did they look at the message headers or request IPs from the provider.

> It’s also an anonymous source to a student newspaper. I wouldn’t exactly hold them to the highest editorial standard.

It’s the Harvard Crimson, not Boondook High Weekly. I would be incredibly surprised if their editors are not graduating and entering the countries top newspapers every year.

The student groups signed the letter as legal entities. But not every single member of those groups necessarily agreed to it. Members of at least some of those group were not even notified about the letter.

There is an easy solution if a group does something you don’t agree with. Post your disagreement with the group and that you are leaving.

So you can only be part of groups you 100% agree with? I wouldn't care enough to 'post my disagreement', especially when I was a student, I had other stuff to care about.

The groups I belong to do many things I wouldn't do. Some of them I'm sure I wouldn't do. As for others, I'm not sure as I don't have enough data and time to verify them. So you imply I should leave them all? In this case nobody could belong to any group because sooner or later any group can do at least one thing you wouldn't do.

if they drink bud light while you prefer ipa, i guess you can get over it. if there are more serious moral dilemmas, then yea. you probably should evaluate compatibility.

So who paid for the truck?

You must agree that getting more of these good and useful tools in play would be positive, right?

So who was it?

I don’t think I should be accused of supporting terrorist actions because I joined an anti Zionist group in my freshman year and I’ve since graduated and had no affiliations with them since, or something like this.

Also I’m not an anti Zionist, and I’m pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, so I don’t really have an opinion. But like, college kids can have dumb opinions that they grow out of. Are they fundraising for hamas? Are they trying to give info to terrorists? Or can this be solved with calling someone’s mom and having her chew them out about spouting stupid shit in public?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com