When my site was attacked and I tracked down all the information I could find to solve the problem, I asked Voat if I should share the doxx of those who attacked the site. Literally no one answered the question. Instead, I was mostly attacked, but it was a genuine inquiry. I erred on the side of caution, but, recently, when @kevdude was threatened with a frivolous lawsuit, I decided that those responsible should get a taste of their own medicine. Especially, since doxxing was not yet a bannable offense.
Additionally, I question why doxxing finally became bannable when @srayzie had her criminal history posted, and not before that. It seems like she required special protection and everyone else was fair game. But, in order to maintain a sense of fairness, the rule was applied more widely.
Of course, I have been painted by the bad guy but only by those who refuse to admit @srayzie was doing the same thing, only worse. Whatever anyone thinks of @gothamgirl, all of the accusations against her are conjecture and @srazyie is factually everything everyone accused @gothamgirl of being. Factually. In that there is no question. DUI, drug charges, trespassing, failure to appear, failure to pay and on and on.
With all the moralizing that has gone on, I find it truly distasteful that anyone should expect @srazyie to be an authority on anything. She is the exact opposite type of person who should be involved in any conservative movement. If you are going to moralize at me, then you should be prepared to aim that in the proper direction because I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported.
Posted automatically (#62370) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
Doxxing has been a bannable offense for years, as an aside, but:
I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported
You mean, like... Doxxing?
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not on anybody's side about this. I find the entire episode distasteful, and the use of doxxing to fuck with somebody in the real is despicable, unethical, and cowardly. Both sides who engaged in this sort of behaviour should be banned and publicly shamed.
I can't believe some stupid shit like this would implode the user base either, like fuck people c'mon. Whatever happened to adults acting like it?
I'm a bit out of the loop, did that user dox her? My understanding was that she shared her twitter or some other social media and it had connections to her personal name or some shit like that.
This isn't me trying to be snarky or smug I generally haven't been able to get a straight answer on whether she gave out her personal information online(doxed herself) or someone else used some underhanded tactic, or security loophole/weakness to find her real name and put her dox out.
Please set me straight but my impression was that she doxxed herself unwittingly and then trolls went after her, she fed them until they got real big and whether legitimately or not she feared for her safety and "dipped out"* of the community(I imagine a BO had an alt so I'd put an asterisk next to the idea of her being gone) this OP then having her personal information decided to look up her criminal history and shared that on voat as retribution of some sort of ill will or slight and has been getting shit because of it or because it showed she was a seedy character.
Would you not call posing as a friend, being given the usernames in confidence, then breaking said confidence and using that to harass and threaten an "underhanded tactic"?
All info is public, and the internet doesn't forget. Doxxing is the not the same as looking up county records. Doxxing is finding those records, putting them together and disseminating them, usually for nefarious means.
I don't care about any of the underlying issues, TBH, if pretty much everybody involved died tomorrow, then I'd just figure some dirt on the Clintons got out. I'm only here to discuss the issue of doxxing, and to make sure we clarify what doxxing is.
When you gather and publish information on a person, for any means, although most are not good for the doxee, you are guilty of doxxing. When you use it to harass and threaten, or use it to enable others to harass and threaten because you're too chicken shit to do it yourself, then you're just adding coward to your repertoire.
You say "being given the usernames in confidence" but the last time I tried to figure all this shit out I saw posts going back many months which detail zyklon and his buddies having her dox, posting her pics and shit way back when and she admitted to it, my understanding from a quick google search is that she had been using the same username on all of her social media and she was sharing photos and identifying information on these accounts, I can only muster up so much pity for such foolishness. Even admin seems to have agreed that the supposed doxer triglypuff or whatever was banned on false pretenses.
I'm sort of putting you on the spot here, I get not using names if you don't want to fan the drama flames, but names in direct association with accused actions are really what I'm missing here.
Like I said above I'm seriously out of the loop here and everytime I try to figure this shit out I'm met with contradicting information about who did what and why and the old screen-caps I had been finding on searches are mostly unreadable after people started deleting accounts.
I'll list what I don't know in the shape of how I'm guessing things went down and see if you can correct me.
Someone doxxed Srayzie, I've heard a number of people accused of this, I don't know who actually did it or honestly if it wasn't her own negligence that led to her self doxing.
Some folks began to spread the dox because of some reason, I don't know the reason, simple trolling, directed trolling for disliking her sub or moderation style, simply because she took bait foolishly, I don't know, who did it? Zyklon b and some of his buddies? I think.
Crensch has been pursuing multiple vendettas that largely seem to be overkill about a matter of opinion on the distinction of srayzie's doxing, banning people from his subs for not agreeing with him and instead siding with the admin's decision. | I'm not saying I know this definitively it seems to be what I'm seeing though.
Srayzie is probably running alts along with her side of things to harass users like kevdude for some reason, threatening to dox him.
Hadn't presumed this to be remotely true but I've seen it enough so it bears mentioning, something about nudes and affairs involving other users, specifically kevdude getting srayzie's boob pics and sharing them?
The Crenshch-Srayzie camp is being accused of doxing and/or harassment that predates Srayzie leaving, I'm unsure if this predates her dox getting out, the case I saw mentioned some time ago was that gothamgirl was accused of doxing her and so in retaliation they used an alt to dox gothamgirl
This seems one sided but I am well aware that the other side of things seem to be a loose assortment of regular users and trolls who have their own axes to grind with GA, Crensh or Srayzie or in some cases I assume are just trolling for fun and that the trolls and some regular users seem to have conglomerated a unified front at one time or another to push something about "1990" which I'm assuming is a reference to a glibert godfried bit about "bob sagget raping and murdering a girl in 1990" another troll effort, I assume.
I'm guessing if I went looking for the dox (I've only seen profile pictures) I could find the criminal record in question so I don't expect you to inform me of it, I could only see that her criminal record would matter if she were at fault for basically all of this drama and her criminal record entailed a whole bunch of sketchy shit like fraud, a bunch of meth or hard drug charges would make sense of the drama though.
If you presume I'm taking a side with this personal drama at hand, know I'm not. I am not well informed enough to have a valid opinion at the moment.
A final aside on the definitions of doxing, I'm unaware of a great formal authority on the matter but I do have personal account of similar tribulations:
I was once a clan leader for an online gaming clan and a female member was unduly harassed by another clan leader after she took his spot on a competitive team and began hobknobing with the leadership. Like most girls she enjoyed the attention a bit too much and made the mistake of sharing a pic of herself on the forums or as her user profile on the forums, which she also shared on facebook or myspace, one reverse image search later and he had her full dox, it wasn't a major secret, he never shared this full dox, she actually gave us her full name and added us on social media before hand but I don't think he saw the chats, he used her social media to backtrack to a picture of her home, got the address and posted satellite or helicopter photos of her home on our forums with a vaguely intimidating message, that faggot was maybe 16 and a few hundred miles away in another country, everybody knew he wasn't gonna do shit but still he crossed a line and we had to punish him, but first came distinguishing "was this doxing?" and we found it was tangential to doxing but more like E-stalking as he never used anything other than information she had been carelessly sharing and did constitute undue harassment, we were prepared to ban him, but it must be understood we were all 15 and 16 at the time so this was seen as more of the fault of his social awkwardness, seeing as no harm came of it, we convinced him he was wrong and the punishment we let her choose was to fight a 1v1 on record and if she won he had to apologize and admit she belonged on the comp team, he got taken to the cleaners and screamed like a man on the edge the whole match, had to apologize and the video was shared on the clan forum, his actions weren't publicly disclosed because basically nobody in our ~300 man clan saw the post before we caught it and he took a demotion in the clan. Was this absolute justice? probably no; but did she fail to protect herself online? the first rule we were all taught about the internet? Absolutely yes, it was even in our ToS and clan rules. The next part has little bearing but they actually became good friends for a while, she even helped him out after he had a rough break up.
In my position all of the hearsay I have heard surrounding the srayzie thing indicates it could have been doxing, it could have been undue harassment, it could have been e-stalking, or it could have been her own personal failure which resulted in trolling, that she encouraged by feeding it and it's entirely possible that some ammount of trolling or harasment was deserved, that said I specifically believe anybody taking precautions to protect their identity online, no matter how cunty, awful, politically opposed, or what have you does not ever deserve to be doxxed I can't think of a scenario where I find it acceptable to set out with the intention to dox someone that doesn't want to be doxxed, maybe if they have doxxed other people or if they are using litigation to dox people they should have some of their own poison but I wouldn't even want to see antifa people doxxed online, it sets an awful precedent. that said I don't think E-stalking is a fair tactic either, you should be arguing ideals, if you can't fight and win on the basis of ideology, concept, philosophy, and rhetoric, that said I believe if other users are going to play dirty you have every right to retaliate using their tactics against them, that isn't hypocrisy, it's counter punching, somebody hits you, you hit them back but if you tarted it you probably deserved to be hit.
I get your questions, but the sad reality is that with the (multiple) personalities involved nobody will ever know the full truth. The shit's been stirred by too many people, there've been probably quite literally 500 posts about this, and I am not nearly autistic enough to sort through it all.
Again, I don't really care about their issues anyway. I originally just replied because I didn't like the hypocrisy presented, but now I'm staying to make sure we can come to a consensus on what doxxing is because no matter how you define it, all parties involved are guilty to some extent.
The counter punch that should have been thrown was the Admin stepping in, cause that's what they're there for, and slamming the gate shut on this shit as soon as he found out about it.
Which he did. Kind of. Then reversed it. Regardless. My point is that you never let idiots drag you down to their level. They'll always beat you with experience.
There's recourses that don't involve "not threats! Just putting your info out there for any random Joe to find, lala" which are much more long lasting, especially when they can be backed up by the police state we pay so diligently for.
I'd say your summary of events is fairly accurate, though it is missing the part where @srayzie was doxxing other users and they were all working together to make multiple false accusations against /v/Pizzagate users which is where I got dragged in when they started calling me a shill and labeled my site a security risk even though Voat does way more tracking than my site.... which is completely bare bones.
Doxxing is slang for nothing in the legal world. There is no law against sharing public information about anyone. Stalking is a crime and @srayzie made multiple accounts to repeatedly share personal information over the course of a year, meeting the legal requirements of stalking and for a civil harassment restraining order when taking into consideration the threats against children.
The whole thing is a "vicious cycle" where the downvote brigade bullies refuse to admit they were wrong and also choose to double down on their dishonesty. They call out people for the behavior that they, themselves, are doing, which generated a great deal of ill will towards them. A lot of what they do is destructive, unproductive and illegal and they are getting paid to do it or they are getting naked pictures from @srayzie in order to be convinced to do it.
@crensch referred to the 45 year old, overweight convict with tattoos of being a "smokeshow." So, a lot of the people who came to the defense of @srazyie were merely whiteknights who were sorely misguided because they were emotionally compromised to the point that they were allowing a pass for behavior they were attacking other people over. It defies reason that people who continue to defend @srazyie, despite her doing exactly the behavior they are supposedly outraged over, turn a blind eye and maintain a hard double standard.
There was a lot more going on in the background, but you can see that now, after @srayzie was doxxed, that anyone who sheds light on proof that shows the extent of what was going on in the background will be banned on Voat.
But, there is always Dissenter, which can be used as a meta layer on top of Voat pages.
There are a lot of definitions of what people think is "doxxing" but most are not actually doxxing and I certainly am not doxxing for the specific intent of harassing users. If the state of California considers it public information, then so do I. I was highlighting that a criminal was trying to moralize at a large group of people when she, herself, is a complete lowlife who thought doxxing was fine.
And, in truth, I've doxxed plenty of people on this site and, even now, nobody cares about pedophiles being doxxed... like Kevin Reynolds of East Hampton Babysitters. So, there is a double standard and there is no legal line.
If someone is doxxed, most people do nothing.
However, when @gothamgirl was doxxed, it was specifically to harass and allow people to call her kids school or something and, in the case of @kevdude, he was harassed with a lawsuit, specifically.
So, let me ask you... what is your understanding of what doxxing really is? A face picture? A name? An email address? Publicly available information? Private information? There is a spectrum of opinions on this.
But, to find all "doxxing" to be "disgusting behavior" you would havce to find Wikileaks to be terrible, as well. I'm sure you have a line, somewhere.
If you gather and publish information on a specific person, whether you are responding to being doxxed, whether you're threatening/harassing them yourself or simply enabling others to do it, you are doxxing. That's what it is, gathering and publishing information to identify a particular individual, generally to further ones own motives and not for a good cause.
All doxxing is disgusting and unethical behavior, that's all there is to that.
WikiLeaks does not, generally, point to John Doe down the street and say "He's a pedo, get em!". They usually stick to bigger things and do not make individuals who have a slight expectation of privacy a focus. Public officials, celebrities, etc, have a diminished right to privacy but not nonexistent. They're just under more scrutiny and while 'Did you know Harrison Ford has a house in TN?' wouldn't be doxxing because he is in the public domain, if you listed mine it would be because I, not being so, would have a higher expectation along with the hopefully added respect of any adult who came across it to ignore it.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of morals.
I did not gather information about one specific person. I gathered information about a group of people who were harassing me and spreading lies. I did not post the information but I did ask Voat first about it and nobody bothered to respond. I posted one piece of information that is provided by the government that anyone can look up.
When I was doxxed, someone thought it was great to make a bunch of dating profiles for me all over the country. Fortunately, there aren't any recent pictures of me online that would make sense in an online dating profile, so the ruse was somewhat obvious.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting what I did was illegal doxxing, but it does not qualify as restricted information. The information I shared is public information and not restricted or private in any way. It is possible to make it private by having the records sealed, but that is not something @srayzie was willing to do because... lazy.
There is no federal law that criminalizes all of the conduct that may be called doxing, such as publishing someone’s contact information. However, there is a federal law against stalking that @srayzie is guilty of. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A.
I have to strongly disagree that all doxxing is wrong. In fact, I don't think there is a problem with doxxing, in general. Everything is already on the Internet and if it moves from one place to another there is no crime and there is no ethical conundrum. It is, indeed, what people do with the information that the law provides for.
(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”
I wanted to state my disagreement with a lot of what you said, but I also want to clarify to others, because of your wording, what @srazyie has done is illegal. What I have done is not. Being guilty of a crime is not a legal cause for "emotional distress."
So, in the absence of any action being taken for an actual legal problem that @srayzie was creating... where Voat was allowing a crime to repeatedly take place... the obvious choice was to expose a criminal for what she is. And, like magic, the problem solved itself.
But, again, I don't have a problem with posting criminal histories on state websites. I think it is very, very clear, in the eyes of the law and anyone with a reasoned approach that information posted by the government is perfectly within everyone's rights to share.
No one could do any decent reporting if they were limited to your standards. Not everyone is a politician and nobody should b e a protected class. The intelligence community has all your doxx, you should have theirs. It's that simple.
@srayzie played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
Posted automatically (#62364) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
I did not gather information on one specific individual...
I did not post any information...
I posted one piece of information...
Bro, that's three contradictions in your first like 3 sentences.
Yeah, we're all aware this information can be found with a simple court search. I see you're trying to quote some law like a lawyer, nobody said you did anything illegal.
I said it was amoral, unethical, and cowardly.
You set out specifically to identify and gather information on individuals you somehow believed were harassing you and then set about using said information in nefarious ways, or provided that information to other players whom you knew would engage in inappropriate conduct.
That is doxxing. It's that simple. Quit twisting my words. We've gone over this several times. Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name, they most assuredly don't post their address and say "Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something but we don't really have any proof, but hey. Don't do anything. *Wink.
And, really, that's the crux of the issue is the threats. If people could act like adults, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. You learn something about a neighbour, and you go 'oh' and file it away for your dealings later. Sure, you spread it around so other people know what's up. But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
These people were factually harassing myself and others. You are suggesting that I don't defend myself, which is terrible advice.
It is not amoral to look up a criminal record, nor is it unethical. Megan's Law website exists for a reason. It isn't cowardly, as it levels the playing field of someone who was already engaged in doxxing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name
False.
I didn't post anyone's address... also a false accusation. Just regroup your thoughts... don't be dishonest.
"Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something
The person in question is literally, factually guilty of many things. We have the court records to prove it.
"doxxing" is a neologism. It isn't illegal. It is what people do with the information... just like the Megan's Law website.
But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
I did no such thing. Knock it off. I posted information from a state/website and I made no threats.
view the rest of the comments →
thewebofslime ago
When my site was attacked and I tracked down all the information I could find to solve the problem, I asked Voat if I should share the doxx of those who attacked the site. Literally no one answered the question. Instead, I was mostly attacked, but it was a genuine inquiry. I erred on the side of caution, but, recently, when @kevdude was threatened with a frivolous lawsuit, I decided that those responsible should get a taste of their own medicine. Especially, since doxxing was not yet a bannable offense.
Additionally, I question why doxxing finally became bannable when @srayzie had her criminal history posted, and not before that. It seems like she required special protection and everyone else was fair game. But, in order to maintain a sense of fairness, the rule was applied more widely.
Of course, I have been painted by the bad guy but only by those who refuse to admit @srayzie was doing the same thing, only worse. Whatever anyone thinks of @gothamgirl, all of the accusations against her are conjecture and @srazyie is factually everything everyone accused @gothamgirl of being. Factually. In that there is no question. DUI, drug charges, trespassing, failure to appear, failure to pay and on and on.
With all the moralizing that has gone on, I find it truly distasteful that anyone should expect @srazyie to be an authority on anything. She is the exact opposite type of person who should be involved in any conservative movement. If you are going to moralize at me, then you should be prepared to aim that in the proper direction because I would never stoop to what my detractors have stooped to and supported.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/GreatAwakeningMeta comment by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#62370) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
Memorexem ago
Doxxing has been a bannable offense for years, as an aside, but:
You mean, like... Doxxing?
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not on anybody's side about this. I find the entire episode distasteful, and the use of doxxing to fuck with somebody in the real is despicable, unethical, and cowardly. Both sides who engaged in this sort of behaviour should be banned and publicly shamed.
I can't believe some stupid shit like this would implode the user base either, like fuck people c'mon. Whatever happened to adults acting like it?
Obrez ago
I'm a bit out of the loop, did that user dox her? My understanding was that she shared her twitter or some other social media and it had connections to her personal name or some shit like that.
This isn't me trying to be snarky or smug I generally haven't been able to get a straight answer on whether she gave out her personal information online(doxed herself) or someone else used some underhanded tactic, or security loophole/weakness to find her real name and put her dox out.
Please set me straight but my impression was that she doxxed herself unwittingly and then trolls went after her, she fed them until they got real big and whether legitimately or not she feared for her safety and "dipped out"* of the community(I imagine a BO had an alt so I'd put an asterisk next to the idea of her being gone) this OP then having her personal information decided to look up her criminal history and shared that on voat as retribution of some sort of ill will or slight and has been getting shit because of it or because it showed she was a seedy character.
Memorexem ago
Would you not call posing as a friend, being given the usernames in confidence, then breaking said confidence and using that to harass and threaten an "underhanded tactic"?
All info is public, and the internet doesn't forget. Doxxing is the not the same as looking up county records. Doxxing is finding those records, putting them together and disseminating them, usually for nefarious means.
I don't care about any of the underlying issues, TBH, if pretty much everybody involved died tomorrow, then I'd just figure some dirt on the Clintons got out. I'm only here to discuss the issue of doxxing, and to make sure we clarify what doxxing is.
When you gather and publish information on a person, for any means, although most are not good for the doxee, you are guilty of doxxing. When you use it to harass and threaten, or use it to enable others to harass and threaten because you're too chicken shit to do it yourself, then you're just adding coward to your repertoire.
Obrez ago
You say "being given the usernames in confidence" but the last time I tried to figure all this shit out I saw posts going back many months which detail zyklon and his buddies having her dox, posting her pics and shit way back when and she admitted to it, my understanding from a quick google search is that she had been using the same username on all of her social media and she was sharing photos and identifying information on these accounts, I can only muster up so much pity for such foolishness. Even admin seems to have agreed that the supposed doxer triglypuff or whatever was banned on false pretenses.
I'm sort of putting you on the spot here, I get not using names if you don't want to fan the drama flames, but names in direct association with accused actions are really what I'm missing here.
Like I said above I'm seriously out of the loop here and everytime I try to figure this shit out I'm met with contradicting information about who did what and why and the old screen-caps I had been finding on searches are mostly unreadable after people started deleting accounts.
I'll list what I don't know in the shape of how I'm guessing things went down and see if you can correct me.
Someone doxxed Srayzie, I've heard a number of people accused of this, I don't know who actually did it or honestly if it wasn't her own negligence that led to her self doxing.
Some folks began to spread the dox because of some reason, I don't know the reason, simple trolling, directed trolling for disliking her sub or moderation style, simply because she took bait foolishly, I don't know, who did it? Zyklon b and some of his buddies? I think.
Crensch has been pursuing multiple vendettas that largely seem to be overkill about a matter of opinion on the distinction of srayzie's doxing, banning people from his subs for not agreeing with him and instead siding with the admin's decision. | I'm not saying I know this definitively it seems to be what I'm seeing though.
Srayzie is probably running alts along with her side of things to harass users like kevdude for some reason, threatening to dox him.
Hadn't presumed this to be remotely true but I've seen it enough so it bears mentioning, something about nudes and affairs involving other users, specifically kevdude getting srayzie's boob pics and sharing them?
The Crenshch-Srayzie camp is being accused of doxing and/or harassment that predates Srayzie leaving, I'm unsure if this predates her dox getting out, the case I saw mentioned some time ago was that gothamgirl was accused of doxing her and so in retaliation they used an alt to dox gothamgirl
This seems one sided but I am well aware that the other side of things seem to be a loose assortment of regular users and trolls who have their own axes to grind with GA, Crensh or Srayzie or in some cases I assume are just trolling for fun and that the trolls and some regular users seem to have conglomerated a unified front at one time or another to push something about "1990" which I'm assuming is a reference to a glibert godfried bit about "bob sagget raping and murdering a girl in 1990" another troll effort, I assume.
I'm guessing if I went looking for the dox (I've only seen profile pictures) I could find the criminal record in question so I don't expect you to inform me of it, I could only see that her criminal record would matter if she were at fault for basically all of this drama and her criminal record entailed a whole bunch of sketchy shit like fraud, a bunch of meth or hard drug charges would make sense of the drama though.
If you presume I'm taking a side with this personal drama at hand, know I'm not. I am not well informed enough to have a valid opinion at the moment.
A final aside on the definitions of doxing, I'm unaware of a great formal authority on the matter but I do have personal account of similar tribulations:
I was once a clan leader for an online gaming clan and a female member was unduly harassed by another clan leader after she took his spot on a competitive team and began hobknobing with the leadership. Like most girls she enjoyed the attention a bit too much and made the mistake of sharing a pic of herself on the forums or as her user profile on the forums, which she also shared on facebook or myspace, one reverse image search later and he had her full dox, it wasn't a major secret, he never shared this full dox, she actually gave us her full name and added us on social media before hand but I don't think he saw the chats, he used her social media to backtrack to a picture of her home, got the address and posted satellite or helicopter photos of her home on our forums with a vaguely intimidating message, that faggot was maybe 16 and a few hundred miles away in another country, everybody knew he wasn't gonna do shit but still he crossed a line and we had to punish him, but first came distinguishing "was this doxing?" and we found it was tangential to doxing but more like E-stalking as he never used anything other than information she had been carelessly sharing and did constitute undue harassment, we were prepared to ban him, but it must be understood we were all 15 and 16 at the time so this was seen as more of the fault of his social awkwardness, seeing as no harm came of it, we convinced him he was wrong and the punishment we let her choose was to fight a 1v1 on record and if she won he had to apologize and admit she belonged on the comp team, he got taken to the cleaners and screamed like a man on the edge the whole match, had to apologize and the video was shared on the clan forum, his actions weren't publicly disclosed because basically nobody in our ~300 man clan saw the post before we caught it and he took a demotion in the clan. Was this absolute justice? probably no; but did she fail to protect herself online? the first rule we were all taught about the internet? Absolutely yes, it was even in our ToS and clan rules. The next part has little bearing but they actually became good friends for a while, she even helped him out after he had a rough break up.
In my position all of the hearsay I have heard surrounding the srayzie thing indicates it could have been doxing, it could have been undue harassment, it could have been e-stalking, or it could have been her own personal failure which resulted in trolling, that she encouraged by feeding it and it's entirely possible that some ammount of trolling or harasment was deserved, that said I specifically believe anybody taking precautions to protect their identity online, no matter how cunty, awful, politically opposed, or what have you does not ever deserve to be doxxed I can't think of a scenario where I find it acceptable to set out with the intention to dox someone that doesn't want to be doxxed, maybe if they have doxxed other people or if they are using litigation to dox people they should have some of their own poison but I wouldn't even want to see antifa people doxxed online, it sets an awful precedent. that said I don't think E-stalking is a fair tactic either, you should be arguing ideals, if you can't fight and win on the basis of ideology, concept, philosophy, and rhetoric, that said I believe if other users are going to play dirty you have every right to retaliate using their tactics against them, that isn't hypocrisy, it's counter punching, somebody hits you, you hit them back but if you tarted it you probably deserved to be hit.
Memorexem ago
I get your questions, but the sad reality is that with the (multiple) personalities involved nobody will ever know the full truth. The shit's been stirred by too many people, there've been probably quite literally 500 posts about this, and I am not nearly autistic enough to sort through it all.
Again, I don't really care about their issues anyway. I originally just replied because I didn't like the hypocrisy presented, but now I'm staying to make sure we can come to a consensus on what doxxing is because no matter how you define it, all parties involved are guilty to some extent.
The counter punch that should have been thrown was the Admin stepping in, cause that's what they're there for, and slamming the gate shut on this shit as soon as he found out about it.
Which he did. Kind of. Then reversed it. Regardless. My point is that you never let idiots drag you down to their level. They'll always beat you with experience.
There's recourses that don't involve "not threats! Just putting your info out there for any random Joe to find, lala" which are much more long lasting, especially when they can be backed up by the police state we pay so diligently for.
thewebofslime ago
I'd say your summary of events is fairly accurate, though it is missing the part where @srayzie was doxxing other users and they were all working together to make multiple false accusations against /v/Pizzagate users which is where I got dragged in when they started calling me a shill and labeled my site a security risk even though Voat does way more tracking than my site.... which is completely bare bones.
Doxxing is slang for nothing in the legal world. There is no law against sharing public information about anyone. Stalking is a crime and @srayzie made multiple accounts to repeatedly share personal information over the course of a year, meeting the legal requirements of stalking and for a civil harassment restraining order when taking into consideration the threats against children.
The whole thing is a "vicious cycle" where the downvote brigade bullies refuse to admit they were wrong and also choose to double down on their dishonesty. They call out people for the behavior that they, themselves, are doing, which generated a great deal of ill will towards them. A lot of what they do is destructive, unproductive and illegal and they are getting paid to do it or they are getting naked pictures from @srayzie in order to be convinced to do it.
@crensch referred to the 45 year old, overweight convict with tattoos of being a "smokeshow." So, a lot of the people who came to the defense of @srazyie were merely whiteknights who were sorely misguided because they were emotionally compromised to the point that they were allowing a pass for behavior they were attacking other people over. It defies reason that people who continue to defend @srazyie, despite her doing exactly the behavior they are supposedly outraged over, turn a blind eye and maintain a hard double standard.
There was a lot more going on in the background, but you can see that now, after @srayzie was doxxed, that anyone who sheds light on proof that shows the extent of what was going on in the background will be banned on Voat.
But, there is always Dissenter, which can be used as a meta layer on top of Voat pages.
thewebofslime ago
There are a lot of definitions of what people think is "doxxing" but most are not actually doxxing and I certainly am not doxxing for the specific intent of harassing users. If the state of California considers it public information, then so do I. I was highlighting that a criminal was trying to moralize at a large group of people when she, herself, is a complete lowlife who thought doxxing was fine.
And, in truth, I've doxxed plenty of people on this site and, even now, nobody cares about pedophiles being doxxed... like Kevin Reynolds of East Hampton Babysitters. So, there is a double standard and there is no legal line.
If someone is doxxed, most people do nothing.
However, when @gothamgirl was doxxed, it was specifically to harass and allow people to call her kids school or something and, in the case of @kevdude, he was harassed with a lawsuit, specifically.
So, let me ask you... what is your understanding of what doxxing really is? A face picture? A name? An email address? Publicly available information? Private information? There is a spectrum of opinions on this.
But, to find all "doxxing" to be "disgusting behavior" you would havce to find Wikileaks to be terrible, as well. I'm sure you have a line, somewhere.
Memorexem ago
If you gather and publish information on a specific person, whether you are responding to being doxxed, whether you're threatening/harassing them yourself or simply enabling others to do it, you are doxxing. That's what it is, gathering and publishing information to identify a particular individual, generally to further ones own motives and not for a good cause.
All doxxing is disgusting and unethical behavior, that's all there is to that.
WikiLeaks does not, generally, point to John Doe down the street and say "He's a pedo, get em!". They usually stick to bigger things and do not make individuals who have a slight expectation of privacy a focus. Public officials, celebrities, etc, have a diminished right to privacy but not nonexistent. They're just under more scrutiny and while 'Did you know Harrison Ford has a house in TN?' wouldn't be doxxing because he is in the public domain, if you listed mine it would be because I, not being so, would have a higher expectation along with the hopefully added respect of any adult who came across it to ignore it.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of morals.
thewebofslime ago
I did not gather information about one specific person. I gathered information about a group of people who were harassing me and spreading lies. I did not post the information but I did ask Voat first about it and nobody bothered to respond. I posted one piece of information that is provided by the government that anyone can look up.
When I was doxxed, someone thought it was great to make a bunch of dating profiles for me all over the country. Fortunately, there aren't any recent pictures of me online that would make sense in an online dating profile, so the ruse was somewhat obvious.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting what I did was illegal doxxing, but it does not qualify as restricted information. The information I shared is public information and not restricted or private in any way. It is possible to make it private by having the records sealed, but that is not something @srayzie was willing to do because... lazy.
There is no federal law that criminalizes all of the conduct that may be called doxing, such as publishing someone’s contact information. However, there is a federal law against stalking that @srayzie is guilty of. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A.
I have to strongly disagree that all doxxing is wrong. In fact, I don't think there is a problem with doxxing, in general. Everything is already on the Internet and if it moves from one place to another there is no crime and there is no ethical conundrum. It is, indeed, what people do with the information that the law provides for.
I wanted to state my disagreement with a lot of what you said, but I also want to clarify to others, because of your wording, what @srazyie has done is illegal. What I have done is not. Being guilty of a crime is not a legal cause for "emotional distress."
So, in the absence of any action being taken for an actual legal problem that @srayzie was creating... where Voat was allowing a crime to repeatedly take place... the obvious choice was to expose a criminal for what she is. And, like magic, the problem solved itself.
But, again, I don't have a problem with posting criminal histories on state websites. I think it is very, very clear, in the eyes of the law and anyone with a reasoned approach that information posted by the government is perfectly within everyone's rights to share.
No one could do any decent reporting if they were limited to your standards. Not everyone is a politician and nobody should b e a protected class. The intelligence community has all your doxx, you should have theirs. It's that simple.
@srayzie played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/GreatAwakeningMeta comment by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#62364) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
Memorexem ago
Bro, that's three contradictions in your first like 3 sentences.
Yeah, we're all aware this information can be found with a simple court search. I see you're trying to quote some law like a lawyer, nobody said you did anything illegal.
I said it was amoral, unethical, and cowardly.
You set out specifically to identify and gather information on individuals you somehow believed were harassing you and then set about using said information in nefarious ways, or provided that information to other players whom you knew would engage in inappropriate conduct.
That is doxxing. It's that simple. Quit twisting my words. We've gone over this several times. Reporters already don't identify anybody beyond name, they most assuredly don't post their address and say "Hey. We think this guy might be guilty of something but we don't really have any proof, but hey. Don't do anything. *Wink.
And, really, that's the crux of the issue is the threats. If people could act like adults, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. You learn something about a neighbour, and you go 'oh' and file it away for your dealings later. Sure, you spread it around so other people know what's up. But you don't threaten their children, or post pictures of their house around town, that's fucking low.
thewebofslime ago
These people were factually harassing myself and others. You are suggesting that I don't defend myself, which is terrible advice.
It is not amoral to look up a criminal record, nor is it unethical. Megan's Law website exists for a reason. It isn't cowardly, as it levels the playing field of someone who was already engaged in doxxing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
False.
I didn't post anyone's address... also a false accusation. Just regroup your thoughts... don't be dishonest.
The person in question is literally, factually guilty of many things. We have the court records to prove it.
"doxxing" is a neologism. It isn't illegal. It is what people do with the information... just like the Megan's Law website.
I did no such thing. Knock it off. I posted information from a state/website and I made no threats.