The acceptability of doxing pseudonymous political opponents

Should it be considered socially acceptable to dox your political opponents?

Yes; actions have consequences and people with the wrong opinions should be exposed so that they can lose their job and be ostracized	23.5%	[ 8 ]
No; anonymous or pseudonymous speech is integral to the political process of a free society in the 21st century	76.5%	[ 26 ]
Total Votes:			[ 34 ]

[Trashy Cinnabon]

I would be divided on this. Protected anonymity would allow for scenarios such as a extreme mysogynist to achieve a position of political power under the guise of not being a mysogynist, then turn around an anonymously donate to and assist mysogynistic things without risking their position of power. Abuse of power using anonymity to get away with it.

But, in the end, I still have to stand for anonymity, rather than against it. As a bisexual pagan man married to a man, I don't think that my personal aspects should be free for the taking to use against me because random Joe Blow who works with me doesn't like me for frivolous reasons. And it's not even an issue of exposing aspects of a person; rather, those aspects are misrepresented as a form of mud-slinging. Like Peter did with the picture of Lois in her underwear in an episode of Family Guy, aspects of a person are twisted and used in a manner inconsistent with the nature of said aspects to garner a negative reaction from the target recipients. We get more than enough of that kind of underhanded shennanigans with election attack ads.

[Roih Uvet]

Tee the Wicked in Drag

I would be divided on this. Protected anonymity would allow for scenarios such as a extreme mysogynist to achieve a position of political power under the guise of not being a mysogynist, then turn around an anonymously donate to and assist mysogynistic things without risking their position of power. Abuse of power using anonymity to get away with it.

But, in the end, I still have to stand for anonymity, rather than against it. As a bisexual pagan man married to a man, I don't think that my personal aspects should be free for the taking to use against me because random Joe Blow who works with me doesn't like me for frivolous reasons. And it's not even an issue of exposing aspects of a person; rather, those aspects are misrepresented as a form of mud-slinging. Like Peter did with the picture of Lois in her underwear in an episode of Family Guy, aspects of a person are twisted and used in a manner inconsistent with the nature of said aspects to garner a negative reaction from the target recipients. We get more than enough of that kind of underhanded shennanigans with election attack ads.

Well, the thing is, the doxing-as-punishment stuff definitely could go both ways. What if your boss found out that you're an "SJW" or whatever the current anti-left buzzword is these days? You're one conservative boss plus one nosy "MRA" (or whatever the current anti-right buzzword is) from your livelihood being in jeopardy.

All that said, the nature of free speech, even in cases like this where we're not talking about free speech in a legal context, is that it always entails allowing people with views you don't like to go without punishment for expressing those views, even if they express those views rather bluntly and without tact.

[Roih Uvet]

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

It's not lying about your opinions, it's lying to achieve a certain end. For whatever reason, subject A believes that expressing their opinion as subject A is detrimental to their plans, so they obfuscate their identity so as to express their opinion without hindering their plans. They lie about who they are to achieve a goal, this is inherently disingenuous.

Except it isn't even lying. My real name is not Roih Uvet, and I highly doubt that yours is Silent Mule Man. You haven't lied to me by taking up your current moniker.

I will agree that it isn't technically lying, that I haven't gone out of my way to convince you that my full name is Silent Mule Man. I'll acknowledge that I may have been hasty to call this lying, and that I may have used the wrong word when I referred to this as a lie. However, the intent and the consequences are the same. You don't know who I am, and I no longer suffer the possible consequences of expressing my opinion because of my anonymous status.
I would take this argument further; someone that invests in my opinions may perceive this as a lie, should they find out my true identity and find my identity unfavorable, for lack of a better word.

Except it's not even deceptive, or anything, to hide your identity, especially if you openly hide it. Not to mention, the point of hiding your identity is not so that you can protect your opinions from your person but so you can protect your person from your opinions -- imagine if you had NeoNazi views and your boss was a ******** Jew.

I'm honestly not sure why you don't see that as being naturally deceptive. I mean, the whole point of it is to deceive. I'm not trying to comment on whether or not it's inherently good or bad, whether or not there's a time and a place for it, all I'm saying is that the point of it is to deceive people.

Obfuscation isn't deceptive, though. You're not deceiving me anymore than you are lying to me by using your Silent Mule Man moniker.

[Yoshpet]

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Seems like the kind of underhanded blow perfectly suited to everybody.

I agree. I personally think it's anti-free speech to try to make it so that you can only comment as your real name.

Maybe hiding your identity is inherently disingenuous and as such misrepresents your opinion.

Quite the opposite; when you attach your real name to a statement, your real reputation is on the line, and that matters a lot to people. People's public statements as themselves are way more misrepresentative of their actual views, since they water those views down for public consumption.

I would have to agree. Public figures are less likely to speak freely, and more likely to say things their audience wants to hear.

I don't think doxing is acceptable, no matter the view. It's just a cheap attempt at censoring people, and the people who do it lose any moral high ground they might have had.

[Silent Mule Man]

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

It's not lying about your opinions, it's lying to achieve a certain end. For whatever reason, subject A believes that expressing their opinion as subject A is detrimental to their plans, so they obfuscate their identity so as to express their opinion without hindering their plans. They lie about who they are to achieve a goal, this is inherently disingenuous.

Except it isn't even lying. My real name is not Roih Uvet, and I highly doubt that yours is Silent Mule Man. You haven't lied to me by taking up your current moniker.

I will agree that it isn't technically lying, that I haven't gone out of my way to convince you that my full name is Silent Mule Man. I'll acknowledge that I may have been hasty to call this lying, and that I may have used the wrong word when I referred to this as a lie. However, the intent and the consequences are the same. You don't know who I am, and I no longer suffer the possible consequences of expressing my opinion because of my anonymous status.
I would take this argument further; someone that invests in my opinions may perceive this as a lie, should they find out my true identity and find my identity unfavorable, for lack of a better word.

Except it's not even deceptive, or anything, to hide your identity, especially if you openly hide it. Not to mention, the point of hiding your identity is not so that you can protect your opinions from your person but so you can protect your person from your opinions -- imagine if you had NeoNazi views and your boss was a ******** Jew.

I'm honestly not sure why you don't see that as being naturally deceptive. I mean, the whole point of it is to deceive. I'm not trying to comment on whether or not it's inherently good or bad, whether or not there's a time and a place for it, all I'm saying is that the point of it is to deceive people.

Obfuscation isn't deceptive, though. You're not deceiving me anymore than you are lying to me by using your Silent Mule Man moniker.

Whether or not some action is deceptive isn't determined by whether or not others were deceived by said action. I hide my identity to protect myself, and despite that being entirely understandable it is still deceptive.

[Its A Crystal]

Tee the Wicked in Drag

I would be divided on this. Protected anonymity would allow for scenarios such as a extreme mysogynist to achieve a position of political power under the guise of not being a mysogynist, then turn around an anonymously donate to and assist mysogynistic things without risking their position of power. Abuse of power using anonymity to get away with it.

But, in the end, I still have to stand for anonymity, rather than against it. As a bisexual pagan man married to a man, I don't think that my personal aspects should be free for the taking to use against me because random Joe Blow who works with me doesn't like me for frivolous reasons. And it's not even an issue of exposing aspects of a person; rather, those aspects are misrepresented as a form of mud-slinging. Like Peter did with the picture of Lois in her underwear in an episode of Family Guy, aspects of a person are twisted and used in a manner inconsistent with the nature of said aspects to garner a negative reaction from the target recipients. We get more than enough of that kind of underhanded shennanigans with election attack ads.

To me, this is the core of most peoples opinions on Doxxing.

I don't like the idea that people who do things I don't like can do things anonymously, but I want my privacy to be respected.

I mean, I've seen this s**t in culture wars. Side A doxxes the s**t out of Side B, and calls foul when a member of Side A is doxxed. The same in reverse.

It's delightfully disingenuous and makes me wish humanity had been less successful. At least clan-based blood feuds were honest.

[Roih Uvet]

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

I will agree that it isn't technically lying, that I haven't gone out of my way to convince you that my full name is Silent Mule Man. I'll acknowledge that I may have been hasty to call this lying, and that I may have used the wrong word when I referred to this as a lie. However, the intent and the consequences are the same. You don't know who I am, and I no longer suffer the possible consequences of expressing my opinion because of my anonymous status.
I would take this argument further; someone that invests in my opinions may perceive this as a lie, should they find out my true identity and find my identity unfavorable, for lack of a better word.

Except it's not even deceptive, or anything, to hide your identity, especially if you openly hide it. Not to mention, the point of hiding your identity is not so that you can protect your opinions from your person but so you can protect your person from your opinions -- imagine if you had NeoNazi views and your boss was a ******** Jew.

I'm honestly not sure why you don't see that as being naturally deceptive. I mean, the whole point of it is to deceive. I'm not trying to comment on whether or not it's inherently good or bad, whether or not there's a time and a place for it, all I'm saying is that the point of it is to deceive people.

Obfuscation isn't deceptive, though. You're not deceiving me anymore than you are lying to me by using your Silent Mule Man moniker.

Whether or not some action is deceptive isn't determined by whether or not others were deceived by said action. I hide my identity to protect myself, and despite that being entirely understandable it is still deceptive.

No it isn't. You aren't trying to make me believe something that isn't true.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Roih Uvet

Silent Mule Man

Seems like the kind of underhanded blow perfectly suited to everybody.

I agree. I personally think it's anti-free speech to try to make it so that you can only comment as your real name.

Maybe hiding your identity is inherently disingenuous and as such misrepresents your opinion.

Quite the opposite; when you attach your real name to a statement, your real reputation is on the line, and that matters a lot to people. People's public statements as themselves are way more misrepresentative of their actual views, since they water those views down for public consumption.

I disagree; regardless of their motivations, hiding their identities is a dishonest move meant to manipulate public opinion. They are intentionally misrepresenting themselves for a perceived gain.

It's more about, I don't walk around with my social security number on my head, don't tell everyone where I live so they can attack me/stalk me etc.

For a public figure who's likely to have crazed enemy stalkers just for being famous, it becomes significantly more important, and with youtube and blogging capable of making someone famous virtually overnight, or the internet in general (youtube celebrities), it can become very easy to outpace your level of safety in regards to your fame. Bradd Pitt or Justin Bieber have millions of dollars, so hiring a team of ex-navy seals to protect them is easy enough, but when you're an average person, this can become incredibly rough. Anonymity is more important for the average person who is famous, or said account is famous, since they are more likely to be targeted, and far less likely to be able to defend themselves against a horde of crazy angry people.

[holidazedV2]

No because it has real life ramifications such as people being fired and facing harassment at their home.
Thats my personal opinion now if you believe doxing is ok then it has to be always ok even if its against you or someone with your similar beliefs

[Xiam]

Doxing is not cool, dude. If the only way you can hit your opponent is using the most powerful of magics... it's a low blow, man, and shows weak ethics and weak argument on your part.

[Roih Uvet]

holidazedV2

No because it has real life ramifications such as people being fired and facing harassment at their home.
Thats my personal opinion now if you believe doxing is ok then it has to be always ok even if its against you or someone with your similar beliefs

Even if the person in question is saying offensive, racist, evil, misogynist, shitlord, homophobic things? N-words and c-words and f-words (not the four letter one) galore.

[DarkSohisohi]

Roih Uvet

One thing we've seen a lot of lately is doxing, mostly as it pertains to GamerGate. Both sides have done this, and it's been recorded and documented. Like Israel and Palestine, both accuse the other of doxing while both sides dox the other. But doxing is not just limited to GamerGate, either. We've seen it across the Internet.

How does the ED feel about doxing your political opponents, with the intent of shaming or harassing them, or reporting them to their employers to threaten their livelihood?

Well, first it depends on how you define doxing. Since, if you have a persons name or number you can simply look up their address in the white pages. Ya, you know those big books that get ripped in karate movies. . . They have more than one use. Finding information publicly available is not doxxing. Likewise, true doxing doesn't result in much harm (at least not physical). That being said it goes against a founding rule of the internet, anonymity.

Ultimately, doxing is wrong assuming it is really doxing. If you do not what your public information used the you should not have published it.

[azulmagia]

Roih Uvet

How does the ED feel about doxing your political opponents, with the intent of shaming or harassing them, or reporting them to their employers to threaten their livelihood?

Doxing one's political opponents does not seem readily defensible, but there must be a distinction between opponents and enemies. In the absence of violent conflicts in the West for decades, we tend to either forget that this distinction even exists, or pretend that all the enemies are external, like ISIS or Al Qaeda.

[holidazedV2]

Roih Uvet

holidazedV2

No because it has real life ramifications such as people being fired and facing harassment at their home.
Thats my personal opinion now if you believe doxing is ok then it has to be always ok even if its against you or someone with your similar beliefs

Even if the person in question is saying offensive, racist, evil, misogynist, shitlord, homophobic things? N-words and c-words and f-words (not the four letter one) galore.

Yes even then
Unless they are an immediate threat to themselves or someone else which would fall under the realm of the authorities.

If we start bending rules for things that offend us then we begin to go a down a slippery path where anything can become offensive at a moments notice.