Threatening Mods and their Children should never be considered free speech @PuttitOut

Threatening Mods and their Children should never be considered free speech @PuttitOut (GreatAwakening)

submitted 5.9 years ago by chocolatepatriot2

113 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Mods need to adhere to safety suggestions and for the most part stay silent accept when necessary.

Srayzie said it himself he had self doxed with fb acct. That was a major failure that was his own only. Maybe I know these things from longer experience dealing with the tech world but anyways mixing or crossing types of interest per devise is not advised. Home work and political interests, (other), should all be run separately and never NEVER cross posted. And that may not be enough. I recommend consulting a security professional or education your self in privacy methods. I know it is a lot to learn and do but it is worth the effort.

link

GodsAngell 5.9 years ago

What happened?????

Why is Srayzie leaving????

link

theoldones 5.9 years ago

3-4 people from SBBH doxxed and harassed her, and one of those people was zyklon_b.

link

VoatsNewfag 5.9 years ago

Harassed yes. I don't think doxing applies. This does not excuse the threats and insults. There should likely be a rule against severe targeted harassment. But it annoys me so much that showing her profile picture or recently uploaded twitter images is somehow made out to be abuse or a form of doxing.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dox

to publish private information about someone on the internet, without their permission and in a way that reveals their name, where they live, etc.:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dox

to publish personal information about (a person) on the internet

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dox

verb (used with or without object), doxed or doxxed, dox·ing or dox·xing. Slang. to publish the private personal information of (another person) or reveal the identity of (an online poster) without the consent of that individual:

She has the same identity on twitter as she has on voat. Everything on her twitter is public.

She used her face as her profile picture on multiple websites - with her username.

Just think for a moment what the point of a profile picture is. And then tell me again that making a profile picture public is "doxing".

The entire point of a profile picture is that it's a public picture to identify you. That's the fucking purpose of a profile picture. - It's mean to be seen by other users.

How many people do you see use their real face in youtube channels? Every child and retard understands that a profile picture is a public picture that can be seen by everyone.

link

BaldMiscreant 5.9 years ago

It's not doxxing if it's public knowledge.

That being said, it's still douchebag behavior.

link

theoldones 5.9 years ago

That being said, it's still douchebag behavior.

this is what we can definitely agree on

link

BaldMiscreant 5.9 years ago

Being a douchebag still fits within the spirit of free speech, however. It turns my stomach, I actively avoid paying identifying information here as a matter of course.

Voat isn't the gated garden. It's the compost heap. There's beauty in it's purpose, wonderful things flourish as a result of it's existence, but it fucking reeks sometimes.

I recommend a bit of due diligence, and a clothespin. It isn't changing.