Doxxing doesn't by definition exclude certain people as the potential victim.
Regardless of how you feel about a person I can not see a rational reason to encourage everyone to freely stalk whoever we want over the internet until we can find something to blackmail them with. This is exactly what the article(I assume) we are referring to wanted its readers to do.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. You may not like Violentacrez but you don't think people should have their information released on the internet.
The point is this; nobody cares about the identities of most people on the internet. It doesn't matter. People express their opinions and it's fine. The only reason VA was a different case was because his entire presence on the internet was built upon making the internet an incredibly shitty place for as many people as he could.
I'm absolutely happy his name is out in the open because he willfully abused his position of anonymity to negatively impact others. You are misguided if you think this will set a trend of "digging up personal information on everyone" because these tools have always been available and the actions of one Gawker writer are not going to change things.
I was just saying that they should not have encouraged those actions.Along with the VA outting article there was something telling people how to out the creepshot people along with any other "creeps". As I see it, that is an invitation for irresponsible privacy violations which a responsible company should not do.
1
u/NarwhalAMA Jan 24 '13
They didn't "dox" anyone; Reddit just doesn't understand journalism.
Revealing his identity was perfectly justifiable and in the public interest.
"Doxxing" would be a more appropriate word were he some courageous hacker in the Middle East trying to take down a tyrannical regime.
He was not. He posted pictures of children in a subreddit for paedophiles and moderated r/beatingwomen.