> If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing.
This has nothing to do with "on the Internet". On the contrary, there's lots of suggestions here and elsewhere that "on the Internet" should be an ad hoc nullification machine that sweeps away and all legal precedent that don't comport with the cyberpunk ethos of slashdot in its heyday.
Come to think of it, now it's even spreading beyond "on the Internet". I've seen the term "doxxing" used to refer to a bona fide newspaper printing the name of a person that physically attended a rally. That's not doxxing. That's journalism and it's been going on long before Vint Cerf was a twinkle in his father's eye.
This has nothing to do with "on the Internet". On the contrary, there's lots of suggestions here and elsewhere that "on the Internet" should be an ad hoc nullification machine that sweeps away and all legal precedent that don't comport with the cyberpunk ethos of slashdot in its heyday.
Come to think of it, now it's even spreading beyond "on the Internet". I've seen the term "doxxing" used to refer to a bona fide newspaper printing the name of a person that physically attended a rally. That's not doxxing. That's journalism and it's been going on long before Vint Cerf was a twinkle in his father's eye.