• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Are you serious right now? We live in a time of mass strife brought on by the redcaps. If you dont want your face and name on the internet dont support fascism.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          It is doxxing when you grab a photo and then add information to it saying “these are the parents of the person you hate, go hate them too” and spread it to hundreds of people. And the only reason you don’t see it is because you don’t like the political party they support.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              It is, and I have described why in two posts down this chain already with provided definitions.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              My definition of doxxing comes from wikipedia and is supported. People here think their opinion of what doxxing is, is real, despite no proof or actual definition. I already went through the definition and shown that this is indeed doxxing. Want to read it, here

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

              And yes, this post contains private information. It contains the information of “these are this guys parents” which would only be known to the select few neighbors at best. Furthermore, it contains information about their political beliefs. So yes, it absolutely is doxxing with the intention of shaming the parents. The info doesn’t need to be completely private and hidden - aggregating info from public databases or facebook counts as well.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yup, so just proving further that law doesn’t apply to people you don’t like.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Historically, the term has been used to refer to both the aggregation of this information from public databases and social media websites (like Facebook), and the publication of previously private information obtained through criminal or otherwise fraudulent means

                  Literal quote from the wikipedia article I linked. It. Is. Doxxing.

              • Maalus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                If you look at the account you replied to, it is made two weeks ago with the sole intention of swearing at people who disagree with them. They will not take your advice.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        70
        ·
        3 months ago

        They are sending their masked goons to kidnap people. They should not sleep safe or soundly. I’ll make sure to feed your high horse when they come for you.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ah yes so the best way to handle that is to doxx parents of a murderer because they are MAGA. That will show the government!

          All you are doing is stooping down to their level and using their tactics against people who didn’t have anything to do with the situation other than the fact of “they had a kid”.

          • daisy lazarus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            If you’re MAGA, you endorse Jan 6 and support a convicted felon to lead the world.

            Fuck MAGA.

            Fuck these two—in spite of their alleged murderer son.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              You don’t commit crimes against people because “they support maga”. Otherwise what you are doing is legitimizing them committing crimes against you, because you aren’t maga. Let the courts handle this, not public opinion, and defo not public opinion aimed at the parents of the perp.

              • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Crimes were not committed against the parents. There is no gag order on publicly posted info. If they receive threats as a result, THEN a crime will have occurred: it is illegal to make threats.

              • daisy lazarus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                My point was that their proud wearing of MAGA caps, in my view, renders them deplorable even if their child’s killing spree was not in any way their fault. (Which, come on, it almost certainly is.)

                Fuck them in spite of him.

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Off of wikipedia - it is an act of publically providing personally identifiable information about an individual without their consent

          1. There is their face - personally identifiable
          2. There is “these are the parents of a murderer” which is the additional information.

          And if you read up on the article you will know that “aggregation from public databases and social media” counts too.

          It may be carried out for reasons such as online shaming (…)

          So yeah, this is 100% doxxing, so save me your “oh you don’t know what it means” spiel.

          • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Wow, some folks really do have trouble with the concept of cause and effect, don’t they? They gave consent when they publicly posted the pics online.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              No, they didn’t give consent to have their names and faces shown publicly to people like you who would shame them for the crime of having a kid that grew up and commited murder.

              • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Actually they did when they posted their names and photos publicly to the internet. “Public” doesn’t mean only the people that you like.

                Edit: Additionally, I find your “people like you” statement hilarious. You know nothing about me, you’re upset that these parents were publicly identified, and you assume my motivations (completely incorrectly.) When something is PUBLICLY posted, that means there are NO restrictions on who sees it. Consent is not qualified by “oh I posted it publicly but not for this group of people I don’t like.” Public means everyone. Had they posted it PRIVATELY, you’d have an argument. But they did not, so you don’t have a valid argument, you’re just upset. There’s a difference between the two.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Read up on the wikipedia definition of doxxing. It states plainly - it can be done from public databases or from social media, and that the goal is often to shame someone. This fits 100%. Otherwise you could argue that “it’s not doxxing, I just went through this guys comments and he slipped up and said that he lives in X city, then posted a photo that let me triangulate his exact location in the city from landmarks”. It is doxxing and a criminal act.

                  • extremeboredom@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Please show me the law that was broken by referencing publicly available posts voluntarily shared by the people in question. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s a “criminal act.”