Putt can define "doxing" as he chooses as long as he includes the definition in the same place noting such.
Look at laws .. they define the same word differently all over the place but the definition of something might be included in the "definition" section of that particular law and would have legal meaning with that particular law (at least).
It certainly is...as far just doxxing is concerned; nothing more? Its free speech.
Do you think that that twitter poster doxxing those guys who cracked that guy at the recent antifa gathering violated any law? It was re-posted here too .. so did the goat too then violate any law ?
That situation had nothing to do with voat and the dox was already out there. The no dox rule is a site wide rule designed to protect the posters here. Zyklon b and his army of degenerates are not engaging in free speech, they're engaging in harassment.
I'm not crying over IMCHAD getting banned except that the ban is apparently just for doxxing and that's all that is noted so I assume that its the entire reason, limited to just doxxing. I have not seen the alleged doxxing from any of the people shown in the doxxing ban today.
Doxxing is not against the PUBLISHED rules. Should people be banned for an unpublished rule ?
I understand, however as the initial ban applied by u/trigglypuff (unjustly I might add) was for that reason and then u/zyklon_b was also banned for the same reason, these users also deserved the ban.
But I agree a clear rule on Doxxing needs to be specified on the user agreement. Which is something that I have been trying to get done by engaging on dialogue with all the drama going on, despite of the different character assassinations thrown at me from the supporters of the previous post. So maybe, just maybe we can reach a common ground now.
People have been arguing over what is allowed and not for a while.
I'm hoping that the Voat update clears this up. Then people can decide what to do from there.
People have been posting threads about the people who clunked that guy in the head at a Antifa or some such gathering where the guy allegedly go a cracked skull. And of the doxxing of those alleged attackers. No one cried over that twitter doxxing being re-published here. Would the new rules prohibit the "importing" of doxxing from another place ? Would a no-doxxing policy be applicable to only goats (and maybe those 3 people doxxed on twitter are goats ~ no one knows). So we'll see.
And I am for a better clarification of the rules in order to avoid subjective application and look for a literal application of rules. At least this is my take. If a rule is subjective enough it opens the door to misrepresentations and "legal" voids.
Indeed and this is a problem that translates to subverses also.
A better moderator culture should be brought to Voat making sure that the literal application of the rules and the objectivity of such application is respected, avoiding to go through this public drama.
A due process needs to be specified insuring the channels of communication for both parties without the influence from 3rd parties on the matter that haven't been invited to the conversation.
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep Voat running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on Voat. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe:
You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off Voat:
You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
MaunaLoona ago
Why is publicly available information considered doxing?
thelma ago
Putt can define "doxing" as he chooses as long as he includes the definition in the same place noting such.
Look at laws .. they define the same word differently all over the place but the definition of something might be included in the "definition" section of that particular law and would have legal meaning with that particular law (at least).
The_Venerable ago
Fuck you dox sympathizer.
thelma ago
I apologize if my free speech defense is offending you. But, free speech itself can be offensive. You should embrace it and you will feel free-er.
The_Venerable ago
Are you suggesting a dox is free speech?
thelma ago
It certainly is...as far just doxxing is concerned; nothing more? Its free speech.
Do you think that that twitter poster doxxing those guys who cracked that guy at the recent antifa gathering violated any law? It was re-posted here too .. so did the goat too then violate any law ?
The_Venerable ago
That situation had nothing to do with voat and the dox was already out there. The no dox rule is a site wide rule designed to protect the posters here. Zyklon b and his army of degenerates are not engaging in free speech, they're engaging in harassment.
thelma ago
Harrassment.
A funny word.
I hear this word everytime I speak to a public official "You're harassing me!" . Indeed I am.
The_Venerable ago
Would you prefer persecute?
thelma ago
No, meth.
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-7277/percocet-oral/details
You know that. LOL
sguevar ago
I am honestly glad the got it.
Because as u/zyklon_b deserved the ban so did these users.
thelma ago
I'm not crying over IMCHAD getting banned except that the ban is apparently just for doxxing and that's all that is noted so I assume that its the entire reason, limited to just doxxing. I have not seen the alleged doxxing from any of the people shown in the doxxing ban today.
Doxxing is not against the PUBLISHED rules. Should people be banned for an unpublished rule ?
That's the question.
sguevar ago
I understand, however as the initial ban applied by u/trigglypuff (unjustly I might add) was for that reason and then u/zyklon_b was also banned for the same reason, these users also deserved the ban.
Specially after this post https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274560 done by u/ScrubbinOutOldBlue and supported by u/Crensch and his supporters also.
But I agree a clear rule on Doxxing needs to be specified on the user agreement. Which is something that I have been trying to get done by engaging on dialogue with all the drama going on, despite of the different character assassinations thrown at me from the supporters of the previous post. So maybe, just maybe we can reach a common ground now.
thelma ago
People have been arguing over what is allowed and not for a while.
I'm hoping that the Voat update clears this up. Then people can decide what to do from there.
People have been posting threads about the people who clunked that guy in the head at a Antifa or some such gathering where the guy allegedly go a cracked skull. And of the doxxing of those alleged attackers. No one cried over that twitter doxxing being re-published here. Would the new rules prohibit the "importing" of doxxing from another place ? Would a no-doxxing policy be applicable to only goats (and maybe those 3 people doxxed on twitter are goats ~ no one knows). So we'll see.
sguevar ago
I hear you.
And I am for a better clarification of the rules in order to avoid subjective application and look for a literal application of rules. At least this is my take. If a rule is subjective enough it opens the door to misrepresentations and "legal" voids.
thelma ago
And tons of shitposting ! LOL
Vague non-descriptive rules ? Expect wild threads to be made and lots of shit posting and a few deliberative threads that people can participate in.
sguevar ago
Indeed and this is a problem that translates to subverses also.
A better moderator culture should be brought to Voat making sure that the literal application of the rules and the objectivity of such application is respected, avoiding to go through this public drama.
A due process needs to be specified insuring the channels of communication for both parties without the influence from 3rd parties on the matter that haven't been invited to the conversation.
belrial ago
From the user agreement.
These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep Voat running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on Voat. You must:
Keep Everyone Safe: You agree to not intentionally jeopardize the health and safety of others or yourself.
Keep Personal Information Off Voat: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity.
So yes doxing is against a published rule.
thelma ago
"sensitive personal information" is the controlling phrase.
This has generally been seen as : social security #s, medical records, etc. Stuff that people take pains to keep secret.
Never has been seen to be: name, address, and other information that a person has not taken any steps to insure privacy.
So its not that simple as first glance looking appears.
Muh-Shugana ago
The only people interested in skirting such rules would be people trying to cause damage to others without getting caught themselves.
belrial ago
If you say so.