[yummyfajitas]

While we are at it, lets also unmask people with blogs about living a closeted gay life, conservative profs trying to become tenured, girl geeks blogging about sexism in their workplace, and other such inappropriate material.

[omgsean]

It worries me that you see these people as analogous to violentacrez.

[jbooth]

The point isn't that they're analogous, the point is once you start drawing lines where it's ok to doxx people, you're on a slippery slope.

Oh, it's ok to do it to violentacrez, but not to someone slightly less creepy? Are you in favor of the slightly less creepy guy? What about someone talking about drugs online? Hacking?

I'm not usually a 'principle-above-the-particulars' kind of guy but when it comes to free speech and privacy online, you've gotta keep it absolute.

[rmrfrmrf]

The point is that getting upset at being doxxed is hypocritical when you're invading the privacy of multiple women. The fact that people who post there feel that they have the 'right' to have a safe haven for posting disgusting and degrading photos is craziness.

[jbooth]

Sure, the guy's an asshole and can't really expect better. But doxxing is vigilantism. In your own words, would you agree with everyone else's definition of "disgusting and degrading photos", and endorse any vigilantism against such?

[rmrfrmrf]

Direct action is always a product of anarchy. If Reddit wants to run an anarchistic community, why shouldn't it be "policed" by vigilantes? What right-protecting organization is out there now to moderate subreddits? IMO this situation is different from the other hypotheticals out there due to the fact that the moderators were knowingly encouraging the violation of privacy of others.

[hackinthebochs]

The point is when you get to decide who deserves anonymity online, other people with different opinions than yourself do too. There are plenty of people out there who would consider being gay just as morally damaging.

[rmc]

lets also unmask people with blogs about living a closeted gay life

Actually if that person is publically and actively opposing gay rights (e.g. political who blathers on about how bad gay people are and shouldn't have rights, and then is caught with a prostitute of the same gender), then yes, those people should be doxxes.

[yummyfajitas]

Neal Stephenson has a great quote on this (from the Diamond Age):

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others--after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices..."

http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2006/03/21/hypocrisy_is_the_gre...

[rmc]

Yes that's a good point. However consider it from the perspective of a LGB community member. LGB people are broadly of the belief that one should come out when one's ready, and no-one should out someone without their permission. However that shouldn't apply to people who are actively working against the LGB community, the people who get up on stage and say "These people (LGB) are not full human beings" (as the Pope said recently). Those people should be outed.