I mean. If they didn't want people to know they were Nazis, they shouldn't have marched at a public event in a public under a Nazi flag?
I'm a serious believer that doxxing is terrible no matter who you're targeting when you're dealing with online stuff. But they were at a public event with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so I don't feel too bad that some of them are suffering the consequences of being dumb enough to march with Nazis at a high-publicity public event.
Also an important element of Journalism -- fact-checking. There's been few cases of mistaken identity so far, but I think we can afford to take the time to get it right.
On one hand, I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole name and shame thing. On the other hand, Nazis. And on the gripping hand, maybe if you are afraid of being outed from being at a Nazi rally , you should be ashamed enough to not go to one.
I used to march with American Atheists to protest state-church-separation violations. I gave my name willingly to anyone (media or otherwise) who would ask, because I was not in the least embarrassed or ashamed of being there.
If an employer or coworker asked why my picture was in the paper, I would explain exactly why. And they would generally agree with my reason for being there. Even the Christians :)
Seems like a tough distinction to defend. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that you think the protestors deserve social sanction, and that sufficient doxxing to permit sanctions to be applied is permissible?
The distinction you're drawing here between doxxing and reporting seems to be that it's generally wrong to publish someone's personal information, but not if they're photographed in public and that photograph is widely circulated. Is that right? I would draw a different line between acceptable and unacceptable disclosures of personal information.
Again, because it's a public protest in a public place, if I go to a protest, I have EVERY EXPECTATION that someone might photograph me and post the photos publicly.
Hell, it just happened to me last night. CBC posted a photo that shows me very clearly with my sign at a rally for Charlottesville. The distinction is that going to an antifascist rally is something I'm not ashamed of, and am not trying to hide.
That is very, VERY different online. Most people who do things online take steps to obfuscate part or all of their real identity out of privacy concerns. The internet is not a public forum in the same way that a public event in a public park is. The nature of the two is entirely distinct.
I think the conduct of the person who you are doxxing needs to be relevant. Here, the purpose of posting the personal information is to get them fired from their jobs and socially ostracized. Do they deserve that? That seems like the most important question to ask.
Two examples to illustrate:
(1) identifying non-nazi protestors from public photos. The alt right tries to do this to antifa types, as do patriotic citizens in authoritarian states against civil society protestors. I believe similar things happened to civil rights protestors in the 60s. Is this less bad than other forms of doxxing (to be followed by harassment or other consequences) because people were out in public? My gut reaction is no.
(2) Doxxing of individuals engaged in public white supremacist/neonazi advocacy, but anonymously on the internet. Let's say the people who write for stormfront were anonymous, and their identities were leaked. Is this worse than releasing the identities of the charlottesville protestors? My gut reaction is no here as well.
Sam Zeitlin So here's the deal. I would actually argue that it's not okay to doxx anonymous fuckheads on the internet, because that LEGITIMIZES the use of that tool against marginalized people, for whom the consequences of doxxing are much, much, much higher. As a former feminist games blogger who got harassed out of blogging, I have pretty strong feels about this, because white dude fuckheads are never going to experience the same level of life disruption that marginalized people do from doxxing, and doxxing white dude fuckheads just makes it MORE likely that marginalized people are going to get doxxed because "everybody" is doing it.
Which is a very different situation from being identified at a protest. If the alt white wants to identify me to law enforcement or news outlets, they're welcome to do so. When I go to a protest in a public place and choose not to cover my face, I am always aware that having my name associated with that event is a real and probable outcome, because that's how privacy and fair use work.
When you go to a public event in a public place, you legally have NO fair expectation to privacy, and people can do whatever the fuck they want with those photographs.
Oddly enough, Sam Zeitlin, my stance is different from yours.
To your two hypothetical: (1) Is it bad to figure out who someone was from publicly taken photos? I say nope! If you are in public, you should expect anything you do to be recorded.
(2) Is it bad to dox anonymous online nazis? I'd say this is bad.
I'd also say that I give a lot of leniency to actions taken against nazis.
Hm. I guess I feel like the practice of crowdsourcing photos to track down personal information of people who appear in public is something new, and different from the old and inevitable risk of being identified by someone from your life seeing your picture by chance. That makes me want to put it in the same category where you put online doxxing - a tool that can become legitimized if "everybody" is doing it.
I'm not comfortable with just saying "just don't go protest if you wouldn't want to be associated with the cause in public." The risk of being ID'd isn't just limited to what law enforcement or news outlets might do. People can be subjected to harassment. A pride parade is another example of a public event where I think it would be messed up to start IDing people from their photos and posting lists online.
In the past my view has been that all doxxing is bad. The recent return of nazism to our political discourse has me rethinking whether I should be OK with an expanded role for non-violent social ostracism consequences as a way of fighting back. Still turning over these issues.
Sure, and that's fair! Your Pride example is a valid concern, especially in areas like the Murican South. But also, given the moral repugnance of Nazis, I am not prepared to exercise any empathy for them in the slightest. They want me and people I care about to die, so fighting back with all the legal tools at our disposal feels pretty appropriate.
It's also totally fair to still be wrestling with it, Sam Zeitlin! I was really unsure about this until very recently. And hey, we've got the luxury of being able to take time to figure it out, and that's great! Use that. maybe you'll come to a different conclusion, or maybe the same one but better nuanced.
And it's also weird how the rules changes with nazis. Obvious example: Is it ok to punch someone? Probably, no. Is it ok to punch a nazi? Probably, yes!
That is, by the fact of being a nazi different rules seem to apply.
Which s mostly because the Nazi platform is basically a platform of violence. Generally speaking, people are okay with responding to violence with violence in order to defend yourself or others.
William Nichols Chris Chinn has said some pretty on point things WRT violence targeting Nazis lately, the tl;dr being: it's not that punching Nazis is creating NEW violence that otherwise wouldn't exist. Nazis want to LITERALLY MURDER TONS OF PEOPLE. Punching Nazis is using a little violence to stop a lot more, way worse violence.
Put a different way, if someone comes at you with a knife and you break his knee so you can get away safely, that's not violence that you're responsible for instigating. That's acting reasonably for the purposes of self protection.
Absolutely agreed. An actual literal nazi is like a house fire. It needs to be contained, and you don't give any moral worth to the house fire. I'm more worried about the people inside the house.
I wouldn't like it if nazis took a photo of me from a demo I was at and started circulating it with my name, where I lived and where I worked. For that reason I can't say I feel it is the same as reporting. If you lower your morales towards even your vilest opponent, your ideals will suffer for it.
Also, to feel it is ok to physically hurt someone just because they are nazis is something I'm strongly against. People always find some reason to resort to violence, if we could stop doing that, all of us, the world would be less cruel.
Karl Larsson You are wrong. Factually and morally, and are making a pretty obvious slippery slope fallacy.
I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Come back here when you understand the moral, factual, and logic mistake you have made. Until then, please do not post on my threads.
I don't recall where I first read it but the idea that "Non-violence is a privilege" is a term that I feel applies here very much. I'd prefer there to be ways of dealing with things that are... I don't know... civilized? Whatever, non-violent. But that's easy for me to say because I'm a middle aged white cis guy, I'm not exactly the target. But like Anna said, the Nazis kind of want to kill a certain segment of the population that isn't me, they can't really afford to just wait while people stand around wishing people would just get along and not fight. And since I'd rather they not get killed, I'm willing to accept the necessity of some degree of violence.
You do not have the freedom to take away someone else's freedom. You do not have the right to take away someone else's rights. And you do not have to be tolerant of someone else's intolerance. -- me, a couple of days ago
I mean. If they didn't want people to know they were Nazis, they shouldn't have marched at a public event in a public under a Nazi flag?
ReplyDeleteI'm a serious believer that doxxing is terrible no matter who you're targeting when you're dealing with online stuff. But they were at a public event with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so I don't feel too bad that some of them are suffering the consequences of being dumb enough to march with Nazis at a high-publicity public event.
Also an important element of Journalism -- fact-checking. There's been few cases of mistaken identity so far, but I think we can afford to take the time to get it right.
ReplyDeleteHere's to responsible journalism!
On one hand, I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole name and shame thing. On the other hand, Nazis. And on the gripping hand, maybe if you are afraid of being outed from being at a Nazi rally , you should be ashamed enough to not go to one.
ReplyDeleteI used to march with American Atheists to protest state-church-separation violations. I gave my name willingly to anyone (media or otherwise) who would ask, because I was not in the least embarrassed or ashamed of being there.
ReplyDeleteIf an employer or coworker asked why my picture was in the paper, I would explain exactly why. And they would generally agree with my reason for being there. Even the Christians :)
Seems like a tough distinction to defend. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that you think the protestors deserve social sanction, and that sufficient doxxing to permit sanctions to be applied is permissible?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean, Sam Zeitlin
ReplyDeleteThe distinction you're drawing here between doxxing and reporting seems to be that it's generally wrong to publish someone's personal information, but not if they're photographed in public and that photograph is widely circulated. Is that right? I would draw a different line between acceptable and unacceptable disclosures of personal information.
ReplyDeleteok ... what one would you draw?
ReplyDeleteAgain, because it's a public protest in a public place, if I go to a protest, I have EVERY EXPECTATION that someone might photograph me and post the photos publicly.
ReplyDeleteHell, it just happened to me last night. CBC posted a photo that shows me very clearly with my sign at a rally for Charlottesville. The distinction is that going to an antifascist rally is something I'm not ashamed of, and am not trying to hide.
That is very, VERY different online. Most people who do things online take steps to obfuscate part or all of their real identity out of privacy concerns. The internet is not a public forum in the same way that a public event in a public park is. The nature of the two is entirely distinct.
I think the conduct of the person who you are doxxing needs to be relevant. Here, the purpose of posting the personal information is to get them fired from their jobs and socially ostracized. Do they deserve that? That seems like the most important question to ask.
ReplyDeleteTwo examples to illustrate:
(1) identifying non-nazi protestors from public photos. The alt right tries to do this to antifa types, as do patriotic citizens in authoritarian states against civil society protestors. I believe similar things happened to civil rights protestors in the 60s. Is this less bad than other forms of doxxing (to be followed by harassment or other consequences) because people were out in public? My gut reaction is no.
(2) Doxxing of individuals engaged in public white supremacist/neonazi advocacy, but anonymously on the internet. Let's say the people who write for stormfront were anonymous, and their identities were leaked. Is this worse than releasing the identities of the charlottesville protestors? My gut reaction is no here as well.
Sam Zeitlin So here's the deal. I would actually argue that it's not okay to doxx anonymous fuckheads on the internet, because that LEGITIMIZES the use of that tool against marginalized people, for whom the consequences of doxxing are much, much, much higher. As a former feminist games blogger who got harassed out of blogging, I have pretty strong feels about this, because white dude fuckheads are never going to experience the same level of life disruption that marginalized people do from doxxing, and doxxing white dude fuckheads just makes it MORE likely that marginalized people are going to get doxxed because "everybody" is doing it.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a very different situation from being identified at a protest. If the alt white wants to identify me to law enforcement or news outlets, they're welcome to do so. When I go to a protest in a public place and choose not to cover my face, I am always aware that having my name associated with that event is a real and probable outcome, because that's how privacy and fair use work.
When you go to a public event in a public place, you legally have NO fair expectation to privacy, and people can do whatever the fuck they want with those photographs.
Oddly enough, Sam Zeitlin, my stance is different from yours.
ReplyDeleteTo your two hypothetical:
(1) Is it bad to figure out who someone was from publicly taken photos? I say nope! If you are in public, you should expect anything you do to be recorded.
(2) Is it bad to dox anonymous online nazis? I'd say this is bad.
I'd also say that I give a lot of leniency to actions taken against nazis.
A lot of that is what Anna just said, too.
Hm. I guess I feel like the practice of crowdsourcing photos to track down personal information of people who appear in public is something new, and different from the old and inevitable risk of being identified by someone from your life seeing your picture by chance. That makes me want to put it in the same category where you put online doxxing - a tool that can become legitimized if "everybody" is doing it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not comfortable with just saying "just don't go protest if you wouldn't want to be associated with the cause in public." The risk of being ID'd isn't just limited to what law enforcement or news outlets might do. People can be subjected to harassment. A pride parade is another example of a public event where I think it would be messed up to start IDing people from their photos and posting lists online.
In the past my view has been that all doxxing is bad. The recent return of nazism to our political discourse has me rethinking whether I should be OK with an expanded role for non-violent social ostracism consequences as a way of fighting back. Still turning over these issues.
Sure, and that's fair! Your Pride example is a valid concern, especially in areas like the Murican South. But also, given the moral repugnance of Nazis, I am not prepared to exercise any empathy for them in the slightest. They want me and people I care about to die, so fighting back with all the legal tools at our disposal feels pretty appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIt's also totally fair to still be wrestling with it, Sam Zeitlin! I was really unsure about this until very recently. And hey, we've got the luxury of being able to take time to figure it out, and that's great! Use that. maybe you'll come to a different conclusion, or maybe the same one but better nuanced.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's also weird how the rules changes with nazis. Obvious example:
Is it ok to punch someone? Probably, no.
Is it ok to punch a nazi? Probably, yes!
That is, by the fact of being a nazi different rules seem to apply.
Which s mostly because the Nazi platform is basically a platform of violence. Generally speaking, people are okay with responding to violence with violence in order to defend yourself or others.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols Chris Chinn has said some pretty on point things WRT violence targeting Nazis lately, the tl;dr being: it's not that punching Nazis is creating NEW violence that otherwise wouldn't exist. Nazis want to LITERALLY MURDER TONS OF PEOPLE. Punching Nazis is using a little violence to stop a lot more, way worse violence.
ReplyDeletePut a different way, if someone comes at you with a knife and you break his knee so you can get away safely, that's not violence that you're responsible for instigating. That's acting reasonably for the purposes of self protection.
Absolutely agreed. An actual literal nazi is like a house fire. It needs to be contained, and you don't give any moral worth to the house fire. I'm more worried about the people inside the house.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't like it if nazis took a photo of me from a demo I was at and started circulating it with my name, where I lived and where I worked. For that reason I can't say I feel it is the same as reporting. If you lower your morales towards even your vilest opponent, your ideals will suffer for it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to feel it is ok to physically hurt someone just because they are nazis is something I'm strongly against. People always find some reason to resort to violence, if we could stop doing that, all of us, the world would be less cruel.
Nazis want me and my loved ones dead. I'm not going to feel bad about preventing that if small amounts of violence is going to prevent that.
ReplyDelete::looks up::
ReplyDeleteKarl Larsson You are wrong. Factually and morally, and are making a pretty obvious slippery slope fallacy.
I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Come back here when you understand the moral, factual, and logic mistake you have made. Until then, please do not post on my threads.
I don't recall where I first read it but the idea that "Non-violence is a privilege" is a term that I feel applies here very much. I'd prefer there to be ways of dealing with things that are... I don't know... civilized? Whatever, non-violent. But that's easy for me to say because I'm a middle aged white cis guy, I'm not exactly the target. But like Anna said, the Nazis kind of want to kill a certain segment of the population that isn't me, they can't really afford to just wait while people stand around wishing people would just get along and not fight. And since I'd rather they not get killed, I'm willing to accept the necessity of some degree of violence.
ReplyDeleteYep, Matt Johnson and Anna Kreider.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in this thread, I don't have the desire to teach about the paradox of intolerance. Maybe it is my job, but not here.
You do not have the freedom to take away someone else's freedom. You do not have the right to take away someone else's rights. And you do not have to be tolerant of someone else's intolerance. -- me, a couple of days ago
ReplyDelete