I have a feeling this is going to be a controversial take but… Am I the only one concerned by the face that Rossman essentially doxxed this guy? I mean, the is a piece of shit, there’s no question about that.
But I just kinda feel like “no doxxing” should mean “no doxxing anyone, ever” and not “no doxxing, except for the 0eople we don’t like”.
[article] For his part, Louis Rossmann denies that his videos about Better Way Electronics involved doxxing. He says any information he shared was all publicly available, including the number provided on the company’s website for customer service enquiries.
I think the distinction lies in an assumption you’ve accidentally made. No doxxing may be useful internet social community rule.
But no doxxing ever in other activities, such as where you transact and have a relationship of trust, isn’t a reasonable expectation. There are times you need to know who a person is. Where people experience loss due to a poor product someone has to be answerable.
This case isn’t about online trolling and social media community standards, its about contracting parties for a commercial product.
So i think thats an important distinction between this case and what you’re talking about.
I think there is a difference between doxxing someone for, say, having an opinion, v.s. investigating someone who demonstrably appears to be actively defrauding people (and possibly worse in this case), it leads to an actual convict, then informing people to beware.
I have a feeling this is going to be a controversial take but… Am I the only one concerned by the face that Rossman essentially doxxed this guy? I mean, the is a piece of shit, there’s no question about that.
But I just kinda feel like “no doxxing” should mean “no doxxing anyone, ever” and not “no doxxing, except for the 0eople we don’t like”.
Who are you quoting?
FWIW, I’m pretty sure this is still doxxing.
I think the distinction lies in an assumption you’ve accidentally made. No doxxing may be useful internet social community rule.
But no doxxing ever in other activities, such as where you transact and have a relationship of trust, isn’t a reasonable expectation. There are times you need to know who a person is. Where people experience loss due to a poor product someone has to be answerable.
This case isn’t about online trolling and social media community standards, its about contracting parties for a commercial product.
So i think thats an important distinction between this case and what you’re talking about.
I think there is a difference between doxxing someone for, say, having an opinion, v.s. investigating someone who demonstrably appears to be actively defrauding people (and possibly worse in this case), it leads to an actual convict, then informing people to beware.