"Doxing" in 2025

[SpellforceFan]

Call it Googling, since that's what it is and since Google will spend fortunes beyond counting to ensure "Googling" is never seen in a bad light.

"Googling" had entered common vernacular, just like "band-aid" and such, it won't work as far as to threaten any damage to the brand, so don't hope for Alphabet to try and act in its defense. At most they'll just completely delist KF to hide the one and only source of it being used in negative context. Stick to "docs" or if you're extra cheeky - "honeycombing", since it has "combing" as in "combing through information".

 

[ScatmansWorld]

I'm not sure how much it's worth asking, but how plausible would it be for congress to pass a law criminalizing any sharing of other's personal info online in a similar way to Europe's laws, and how much would it hold up to first amendment scrutiny? I don't want to be negative about all this, but I have a bad feeling that the general public's want to control their information will outweigh their want to "unmask" people, so it wouldn't have that much pushback. Then again, a brief trip to social media will show there's still tons of people who are very into the concept of exposing others online.

 

[Ted's Cabin]

Now that doesn't sound very Kiwi-like.
Are you upset you've got a thread?
Upset you were unmasked?
Haha, cope trannyfag.

I suggest we replace dox with bin (ie. doxbin).
"Anyone got his bin? Yeah I binned him last week, didn't you see?"
Short and snappy.

I know you're shitposting, but I just don't like doxing people because it hurts the target and the forum and it doesn't have any real journalistic value. There's also the morality you teach to children where I wouldn't want something done to me, so I generally shouldn't do it to other people. If you don't like that you get the more hardcore lesson, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

That's too bad. I'm not telling people what they can and cannot post. If it's out there, it's out there. There's many platforms (X) that allow what we do minus public information.

X is just a bitchpost site where you quote something political and smugly imply "Look how stupid this idiot is", which is the worst form of content possible. If people do that here they get a special retard sticker for being annoying. The defining feature of kiwifarms isn't "public information" any more than it's "free speech". It's the culture of high effort OPs, archiving what people do, and funny posts. Knowing where someone's grandma lives isn't funny or interesting or any action other than living in a house.

The police report of Tomlinson getting mugged at Chubby Cheesesteaks is funny, and if you share it, the implication is that you should laugh and probably make fun of him. What do you do with a phone number? It's only really useful for texting, calling, or more doxing. Where someone works is often public information too, but if you post their employer's contact information you know what the only use of it is. There's very little you can do with someone's address that isn't illegal or highly immoral that also isn't provided just by knowing their state.

 

[MeltyTW]

I'm not going to force any specific transfer

what about fonging someone?

 

[bangdingow]

>muh optics
Only kike subversives concern themselves with "optics". I've seen this movie many times before. Pilpul bullshit.

 

[filthypenguin]

I've got an idea. Under HIPAA law, information that is not legal to share is labeled "PHI", short for "Protected Health Information."
We could ape on that by referring to the old definition of a dox as something like "PAI" (publicly available information) or "PIE" (public information exposed or something to that effect) and we can refer to it as Paing or Pieing, because lolcows are the clowns of the internet.

I don't like PIE. "Exposed" implies that the information wasn't exposed until you exposed it. It was already exposed, that's what "public" means. PAI is better.

 

[Harm]

I like "infomaxxing" personally. I'm not harassing or intimidating anyone, I'm simply maximizing the information pertaining to them!

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

We could also lean into the Kiwifarms aesthetic as well and refer to it as the harvest and harvesting. It sounds sinister which makes it more fun.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

If people misconstrue my speech to fit their agenda they’re going to do it whether I use the word “dox” or “infofisting”. Cringe.

 

[postfeetpls]

Journos and faggots all agree that "unmasking" is a good thing to do because it helps people face responsibility. Apparently it's very different from doxxing and it's what kiwis should do.
We're the unmasking forum now.

 

[CumDumpster]

I may be late to the party on this one, but I have a potentially better term that's guaranteed to be censorship-resistant.
Google/Googling

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

I'm not necessarily challenging the proposal and don't feel that strongly either way.

But after reading Null's OP a few times and skimming through 22 pages of posts, I still have a few questions.

1) What's the explicit goal of removing the term "doxing" from future use on the site?

Avoiding potential legal consequences in a fluid legislative landscape?

Improving the PR reputation of the site?

Turtling and making less fodder for journos and enemies?

2) Is this change being made through legal advice from Hardin or others?

3) Is cleaning up the site's reputation connected to the 2025 goal of establishing the Internet Freedom Preservation Foundation?

 

[Uncle Ted's Cabin]

Fingerprint? Can be shortened to finger, as in to point out or identify.

 

[Hermann von Salsa]

I'm less worried about the name change and more interested at how this new rule will be enacted? Are all variation of doxxing be replaced automatically when it is posted or will users be given a warning/ban?

 

[TheArtilleryman]

I refuse to play lefty word games.

I'll refrain from saying it anyway because I respect the slobbermutt and his points are compelling, but I'm not calling it something else.

 

[Whiskey]

I'm not necessarily challenging the proposal and don't feel that strongly either way.

But after reading Null's OP a few times and skimming through 22 pages of posts, I still have a few questions.

1) What's the explicit goal of removing the term "doxing" from future use on the site?

Avoiding potential legal consequences in a fluid legislative landscape?

Improving the PR reputation of the site?

Turtling and making less fodder for journos and enemies?

2) Is this change being made through legal advice from Hardin or others?

3) Is cleaning up the site's reputation connected to the 2025 goal of establishing the Internet Freedom Preservation Foundation?

It's more doing something simple that could help down the road. I doubt its effectiveness will be worth the effort but I understand the attempt.

It's trying to make it harder to get sound bites for 80 year old men to make snap judgements on

 

[Shig O'nella]

im all for bringing back the word "Deets" or "Deetz"

Was always partial to skinny, but I'm old.

 

[MeltyTW]

>muh optics
Only kike subversives concern themselves with "optics". I've seen this movie many times before. Pilpul bullshit.

I actually appreciate the heads up so if i Google someone's public Facebook profile that they linked in the bio of a pseudonymous account I don't accidentally "confess" to a crime I didn't commit by saying I "doxed" (used their info to intimidate or blackmail) when I meant Googled them (simply looked at publicly available info and then did nothing else with it )

 

[Not Funny]

The word "Doxxing" has had negative connotations for at least a decade. I'm surprised you didn't try to do this earlier Null.

 

[Not Really Here]

Make it as easy as possible, maybe a tag thing or whatever, that makes the quotebox say: "Google said" and attribute the research correctly?

"Check their Google on Kiwifarms"