I have noticed that doxxing has become much more common over the last year. You saw it during the riots where 'UK Anonymous' took on tracking down identities but also Ukrainian security services have started revealing the identities of vatniks. It's a method of intimidation I guess, now that the internet can destroy your life forever.
My prediction is that it'll escalate until someone will die. Probably someone innocent. And then we'll all say 'oh how horrible' and 'this kind of mob justice should never happen again'.
>>41725 There's a lot sextortion scams nowadays. I think a few teenagers have taken their lives from it already. A hot girl their age asks them for nudes, the boys oblige, then it turns out the hot girl is a Nigerian gang and they'll post the nudes and the lewd messages to all the victim's friends and family unless he pays them.
Maybe this could be applied to bigoted statements. Trick someone into making a rum joke, or maybe even falsify a Twitter account in their name with their pictures from Facebook. Screenshot the comment, and then you can extort them. Or just post it for fun to ruin their life. Once it's out there that John Smith has been commenting on the physiognomy of East Africans' skulls, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle, and employers screening him will see his bigotry.
Why is it someone can post any old shite as an OP and no one will question its validity at all? Is there a formal approval process I'm not subject to that gives threads about nonsense an unearned air of legitimacy? If you go around calling yourself John Smith, people finding out you're actually called Robert Edwards isn't "doxxing". You also don't get to turn yourself into a public figure, which is a loose way of defining what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has done, and then cry foul when you become a subject of public interest. Is reporting on MPs having second jobs doxxing? What about businessmen having an undeclared conflict of interest? Or is it only doxxing when it happens to history's eternal victim, the fascist?
There's some kind of law around "legitimate public interest" or something, if I'm not mistaken (might well be mind you.) Remember that Leveson thing about what newspapers can/can't print about 15 years back? That was before social media made newspapers obsolete, of course. It's something the public has a right to know if an MP or influential businessman is up to shady stuff, or if the owner of a local business is fiddling kids, but an ordinary member of the public has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>Or is it only doxxing when it happens to history's eternal victim, the fascist?
The kind of doxxing I usually associate the word with is when some nasty cunts off KiwiFarms decide to publicly name and shame some poor autistic bastard for their shameful but perfectly legal and consensual sex habits, or just plain for the sake of bullying some fat bipolar youtuber. People have killed themselves over it. It's not something to be dismissed as okay as long as it's happening to people you don't like.
Plain and simply it means revealing the name and home address of somebody, which you would only do if you want the implied threat of somebody contacting you or visiting you in real life. It's an inherently threatening act, because it'd be pointless to do it otherwise.
>>41727 In a thread that’s not about fascism at all, but merely uses a far-right figure as an example, this thread had a reminder to denounce the far right in only the third reply (yours). From my perspective, the system works.
The fact his real name is lame and silly and his pseudonym is a rugged everyman name makes me think he chose Tommy Robinson on purpose to influence people’s opinions of him. And in that respect, it is arguably worth reminding people not to be influenced by his comparatively cool name. Other than that, it’s a weak ad-hominem attack that discredits the person making it, similar to anyone who insisted on calling the orange president man Donald Drumpf.
>>41730 >The fact his real name is lame and silly and his pseudonym is a rugged everyman name makes me think he chose Tommy Robinson on purpose to influence people’s opinions of him.
Well, yeah. That's why I brought it up in the first place. I don't think his real name is silly at all, it's incredibly normal with only the double barreled nature of it approaching something like noteworthiness. I'm afraid you're jumping to conclusions somewhat. Indeed, I've never heard or read anything that implies his real name is meant to be funny sounding*. If his true name was Anal Sheikh (a real name I have not made up, btw), maybe I'd get your point, but even then I wouldn't personally care.
He chose "Tommy Robinson" for transparently cynical reasons, because Steve/Thomas is a nakedly and unrelentingly cynical person, which is obviously quite important to note when discussing him. Also, if a thread's about Tim Robinson, it's about fascism.
*It's possible you have seen that on social media or a panel show. However, I have no engaged with either of these things for over a decade now.
>>41729 Yeah, but none of that is happening at the Beeb, is it? And I never said "doxxing is fine, get over it". Clearly the kind of psycho-loons on KiwiFarms are not beholden to the same stringent broadcasting rules and journalistic ethics of a BBC News reporter. If one of the pyschic vampires from KiwiFarms was working for the BBC and doing their usual schtick of group harassment and getting giddy with excitement when they think their victim might have killed themselves, I'd see your point. However, using someone's non-pseudonym name and reporting that he's gone abroad hours after, metaphorically, flinging handfuls of shit across the walls isn't close to being the same thing.
I think the Leveson Inquiry being put out to pasture like nothing ever happened is a much bigger problem when we're considering jouralism in the UK. In the realm of British journalism ideologically motivated attacks from the hurt feelings brigade, AKA the far-right, are pretty far down my list of concerns when we've known for donkey's years now that an entire generation of journos were routinely breaking the law, and all we got out of the discovery of this shocking and heinous fact was Murdoch's cream pie. Of course, that Leveson was a brilliant beam of light preparing to shine directly onto the soul of the UK's print media, a large swathe of which runs with parrallel ideology to Steppen Yaxley-Wolf's own, but do so with a degree of "respectibility" and massive influence over the political class, before being snuffed out because of colusion between those groups, garners almost no attention. Or how about the fact that, much like the arts, journalism's barriers to entry have ballooned from keeping a deadline, note-taking and an inquirying mind, to a 1st from a decent uni, a cheeky bit of nepotism to get your foot in the door and a well-off family to support you while you work for peanuts and pay a quadrillion pounds a month in rent down in London for years? Oh, you did remember to move to London, didn't you? And even after that's all done you won't be able to do any proper reporting because there's no money/the former editor's son is being paid that money to write a bi-weekly column about whatever annoyed him on Twitter. His stupid column then feeds back into culture war bullshit, this leads to more far-right whinging and then no one talks about any actual problems because the political sphere has been given over to gripes and fringe issues, so all the real stuff keeps decaying and breaking down, leading to more ground gained by the far-right and their internet addled acolytes.
See, you pair thought I'd gone completely off-topic, but then I brought it back. That's writing, but they won't give me a column, because they know I'd become too powerful.
>I don't think his real name is silly at all, it's incredibly normal with only the double barreled nature of it approaching something like noteworthiness.
Anyone from the kind of rough footy hooligan type of working class background he's aiming for would instantly clock the double-barrel and distrust him. It doesn't fit his image, he's positioning himself as the pleb equivalent of Farage; the image it conjures in my head is Farage with the flat cap and a shotgun over his arm while Yaxley-Lennon is the gamekeeper lugging the dead pheasants.
This is the psychology of the right wing, as best as I can understand it at least. Deference to their betters as leaders, but only as long as the leaders are doing it for patriotic reasons. As a lieutenant, Lennon has to portray himself as one of the footsoldiers who rose through the ranks, not somebody who was born into the position. We (or at least I, I'm not sure about you) see the toffs as our real enemies, this nationalist lens allows rightoids to view them as united in the same aims.
>the second half of your post
I don't know why you are being so defensive lad, I wasn't having a pop. Have a brew and chill out a bit alright?
