> Doxing, as in compiling public information about people on the internet did happen, but …
There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it.
> the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums.
This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer.
> In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet.
There is because I wrote it there. But is used to show contrast. I was contrasting how there was doxing and there wasn't swatting.
>doxxing is unethical and illegal
It may be unethical to you, but it is ethical to me. Doxxing is not illegal in the United States.
>This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it.
I see the documentation and preservation as a good thing. Not everyone has to share the same opinion as me. People who don't want to see this stuff can not visit the site.
>This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod
It doesn't glorify it anymore than wikipedia glorifies the historical events it has articles about.
>The forum provides the means
That doesn't mean the forum should be responsible. If Is someone googles a person's name and their address shows up does that mean Google is responsible for the person being swatted? In my opinion, no it isn't.
>glorifies the result
The forum can't control how people respond to the event. No one is forcing people to commented negatively or positively or even at all about it. Even without the Kiwi Farms it would likely be talked about somewhere else.
>they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer
They don't implicitly do this either. The community in general doesn't swat people. Yes, I'm sure you can find some exception, but I don't believe a community should be killed just because there are some bad people who claim to be a part of it in it.
A link isn't an argument. Are you trying to say that free speech is bad and that we should censor people to avoid the subset of acceptable speech from changing? I personally am pro free speech and anti censorship so we disagree on these things if that was what you were trying to say.
There’s no “but” here. This is a common talking point defending this forum — “at least they didn’t explicitly do something worse” — but doxxing is unethical and illegal. Period. This forum encouraged, enabled, and glorified it.
> the forums were not about swatting and doing so is against the spirit and the rules of the forums. That said if someone was swatted it is fair game for that event to be documented on the forums.
This is bullshit designed to evade responsibility with a wink and a nod. The forum provides the means and glorifies the result, but believes that its hands are clean because they don’t explicitly setup a SWAT autodialer.
> In the case of the internet where most of it is privately owned it will require the companies and individuals to protect freedom of speech to have freedom of speech on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance