The Gawker was banned for revealing the identity of one person. A Voice For Men runs a site devoted to revealing the identities of thousands. Why is AVfM on the sidebar and why are links to it permitted?

ArchangelleDaddy · 2012-12-21T00:21:52+00:00

AvfM doesn't do that to redditors AFAIK.

If they start doxxing redditors from their reddit account names, then we will look at them again.

However, if you do something in real life, not from behind a keyboard.... then you deserve to be identified for that action. However if you are just spouting nonsense (like /r/SRS) then well, keep it on the internet, no need to harass you IRL.

Coinin · 2012-12-20T22:21:07+00:00

[permanently deleted]

UtilitarianByNature · 2012-12-20T17:35:29+00:00

Yeah, I want to stay out of this, but this question has been asked too many times.

There is a huge difference between the expectation of online anonymity in a forum which expressly operates with that as its modus operandi and being on camera in a public place.

Plenty of people have said stuff on camera they didn't want to be seen saying and it got out. Did we punish the guy who released videos of Romney saying all the things he said during the election? I think the difference is, the internet is seen as an anonymous organism by default and it is often considered dangerous to remove anonymity especially for views that are unpopular.

^To ^see ^the ^sometimes ^damaging ^effects ^of ^popular ^opinion, ^look ^up ^the ^Electoral ^college, ^and ^study ^up ^on ^the ^American ^founding ^fathers.

Whereas if you are going to get out there in a public sphere and test your ideas in the public marketplace, you are making a choice to have yourself be known.

So permission or no, just because someone was caught on camera doesn't change the fact that even for a brief moment they made themselves available to the general public at large.

For example: If I was simply an observer at the protests and I saw the girl in question and I happened to remember her face and use that information to find her later and challenge her views and actions, how is that any different from a camera, "seeing her", and me then referring to that information later to publicly challenge her beliefs?

Either way shes being exposed in a way. Now if the problem we have is that with the advent of the internet she somehow becomes TOO exposed, maybe that's a conversation we should have. But as a societal problem, I don't think Doxxing is objectively tantamount to revealing someones actions in a public place.

comehitherhitler · 2012-12-21T01:59:24+00:00

There's no expectation of anonymity in a public, in-person protest. How do you feel about the recent actions against Westboro BC? Do you feel they should remain anonymous?

In any case, Reddit has specific rules against doxxing. That's the beginning and the end of the issue as far as many mods are concerned. Doesn't matter if they doxxed Hitler or MLK Jr. Gawker doxxed a Redditor with the help of other Redditors, posted his personal info to Reddit, and was subsequently banned from parts of Reddit. It's simple cause and effect. There's no philosophy involved. To compare that to AVfM's actions and attempt to paint us as hypocrites is a veiled effort to get us to chase our tails policing a practically infinitely broad movement that has no barriers to entry.

I think AVfM would also disagree with you calling them a site "devoted to revealing the identities of thousands", especially considering they were around before the UT fiasco. The irony is that if they were revealing the identities of that many people, the fallout for the average individual would be extremely low, and whatever motivations you ascribe to their efforts would be thwarted.

nicemod · 2012-12-20T23:50:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Laurelais_Hygiene · 2012-12-21T12:28:59+00:00

SRS call to arms thread.

sotonohito · 2012-12-20T17:25:06+00:00

AVfM has reported on people in public committing violent crimes or advocating committing violent crimes on forums, this is standard behaviour in investigative journalism.

jolly_mcfats · 2012-12-20T17:12:41+00:00

TBH, I think most of us are just happier not giving gawker any revenue. It's not like we don't discuss screenshots of articles at gawker, but it's nice to know that we aren't rewarding their linkbaiting.

2012-12-21T02:09:02+00:00

The OP doesn't understand what "doxxing" is.

Those Toronto protesters weren't anonymous, they did their thing in front of a camera. AvFM referring to them by their names in an article isn't "doxxing"..

ZimbaZumba · 2012-12-20T17:50:02+00:00

This is concern trolling. The difference in logic between the two instances is obvious.

sotonohito · 2012-12-20T17:10:24+00:00

The people that AVfM have doxxed, as far as I'm aware have people people in public spaces (in the meat world) spouting vile, hate-filled rants.

If they weren't public, they've been on message boards advocating violence and hatred.

sotonohito · 2012-12-20T16:17:27+00:00

[permanently deleted]

MechPlasma · 2012-12-20T17:25:08+00:00

When you say "AVfM runs a site revealing thousands of identities", what specifically are you referring to here?

lurker_lenore · 2012-12-20T21:05:46+00:00

Here's a list of the differences between your two cases:

VA didn't break the law.

Gawker has a history of trolling, especially Adrian Chen vis a vis Reddit.

Adrian Chen "reported" information he knew to be factually incorrect.

AVfM did not contact the individuals mentioned in their reports to gloat.

VA did not threaten anyone.

The mainstream media has not repeated the stories on AVfM.

Have a nice day.

ghebert001 · 2012-12-20T17:57:04+00:00

Avfm doesn't engage in scorched earth campaigns in order to get people fired from their jobs and ruin their lives just because they don't agree with what they say or do. Avfm simply attaches names to bigotry so these people can be held to some degree of accountability.

Coinin · 2012-12-20T20:11:35+00:00

[permanently deleted]

rightsbot · 2012-12-20T16:14:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Comments