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