"Doxing" in 2025

[Hiccup Scream]

my preference is for index

hell yeah another index nigga, its short and sweet

 

[Orange Rhymer]

pozzing?

we already love the term

 

[Subtle Cow]

Honestly, not keeping up with thread but I think no one will care and continue to use "dox/ing". Just how it is.

Exactly this. "Retarded" used to be an accepted word for literal retards and now that word is shunned over retarded bullshit. Don't cave to the pressure papi Null and just leave it be. Give it a couple years and it will change.

I know you're getting a lot of shit tonight papi Null but I hope you're able to get away from all this for a break and breath. You probably need it. Papi Null is catching a lot of flak tonight (even though it may be deserved) but he is still just a human.

This probably won't matter in a week when everyone goes from "I just nigger raped this person" to "I just doxed this person"

Nigger, Josh hasn't caved to the pressure. He's requesting a term exchange so he doesn't have extra shit to deal with.

"
The fact that this subculture invented the term and abides within the law is irrelevant to what the average person now thinks of when they hear "doxing". That we are 'in the right' does not matter. The use of a word, which now describes a crime, to describe things which are not criminal, is detrimental to our interests and long-term prospects."

It literally does not matter if nothing is wrong. Eyes will be drawn to it and then you will have to defend it, which costs resources. Resources are not infinite.

 

[donjulio]

Just use “Googled”

It’s been suggested a few times and it’s basically where and how peoples info is found. As well as the entity storing it in some way shape or form. Plus it’ll fuck with everyone whining about it.

 

[I'm a Silly]

section 230 specifically protects sites when they do remove illegal content. the word 'dox' is not illegal in and of itself, and removing it does not remove the intent behind what it describes. we're still doxing people, whether we call it that or not. filtering the word, however, is editorializing a user's post, which could potentially be construed as publishing, rather than simply hosting. that's the problem. when posts are editorialized by a site (or rather, by the administrators / moderators of a site), that site can no longer disclaim responsibility for what its users are posting.

But I have had posts deleted before, so where are we w/r/t s.230?

 

[P R O X Y]

I can't read 43 pages of sperg. Why can't we just use the terminology of "Open Source Intelligence" || OSINT ? This is perfectly legal and is used by companies worldwide? Data broker sites are to my understanding OSINT which is literally OPEN. If the trannies want to try and cry about public data available through Open-Source Intelligence then let them try and do it.

 

[Moss Monster]

This is the same level as YouTube self-censorship (unalive, sewerslide, corn, etc.). I’m sorry but I thought free speech was one of the foundations of this site.

You need to face a pragmatic reality: KF is built on a rackety foundation of organizations who will respond to the slightest wobble with a total revocation of support for the structure of the site. In order to live with this reality, and express ideas and information openly and freely, we need to both do P.R. as we say the things we think and feel. Asking you to not say 'dox' when the world understands it to mean a subtly different thing (trying to utilize information as leverage in a threat,) is not the same thing as telling you not to say on the site that Fatrick Tonnelinson, of 69 Lardtard Lane, Fattisota, USA is morbidly a beast and I'd not procreate with him.

 

[♦️ King of Diamonds ♦️]

Look, I'm sure I'm not going to get nice stickers for this post and I may even draw the ire of our Dearest Leader but I'm gonna throw my two kopeks in: Does anybody remember when Shadman drew a non-explicit drawing of Keemstar's actual daughter (who was in elementary school at the time) and slapped it on the front page of his website that contained hardcore loli and shit?

Did anybody at the time ever really think Shadman had the purest and most innocent of intentions when he did that? Do you think any prosecutor, judge, or jury of average joes would think a KiwiFarms user posting someone's full SSN and phone number of their employer on a thread here would have been done without any intent of harassment whatsoever- given the sordid reputation of the website and the potentially negative contents of the thread itself that if oftentimes more detailed than a legit FBI dossier? Even regardless of this, null is absolutely right in saying "doxing" explicitly has connotations of harassment and swatting in english vernacular now so just renaming the same act as "phonebooking" or whatever isn't going to help. It's like if a man is put on trial for Rape and he claims in his defense "I didn't rape them! I just performed a Special Romantic Operation!"

Intent matters when it comes to legal disputes- whether such disputes are frivolous or not. Nowadays you don't have to be directly involved with a crime at all to get caught up in it- this is why the Sandy Hook Families can slap Alex Jones with a defamation ruling that puts him in more debt than Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. This is also why the Sandy Hook Families can sue firearm manufacturers for liability in mass shootings... all this despite the fact neither Alex Jones nor those gun companies had fuckall to do with their kids dying.

And I've been telling people for awhile now it was probably an inevitability for somebody who's fucked in the head and has easy access to firearms, a vehicle, and a GPS to use the dox information on the website to become a 'lolcow serial killer' and hunt down and murder lolcows they didn't like. People laughed at me for saying that could very well become a real thing- and what do you know? Some fucker drives all the way to Chicago and tries knocking on Nick Fuentes's door with the intent to put him six feet under. Other groups like TORSWATS and other groups have undoubtedly used dox from the farms to commit swattings.

I get that legit criminal harassment has always been against the rules of the website- but at a certain point it becomes like those warning labels on drug paraphernalia like bongs that says "for tobacco use only" or those glass roses "for gift use only" things that people just throw the plastic rose away and use the glass container as a crack pipe. Another similar analogy- I remember back in the day when McDonalds used to sell these little tiny plastic spoons with their coffee you could stir in sugar and milk with... the problem was the spoons were so tiny they gained a reputation nationwide as the perfect spoon to use for snorting cocaine and meth. So what did McDonalds do? Did they double down and triple down on selling the coffee spoons? No- they just silently discontinued them and replaced the spoons with a plastic stick. Last time I checked the McDonalds Corporation is doing just fine.

This isn't the early 2000's anymore- the internet, and the United States in general now are infinitely shittier places now. Just forbit the use of anything that could be construed as dox or "personal information" (regardless as to how publicly available it might be) and focus discussion of lolcows and individuals of interest to gossip and shitposting. How you define and enforce that is outside my knowledge on how to enforce as I have never been a janny or website owner, but I would say it's a warranted discussion if Null is intent on making Lolcow LLC his lifetime career company.

 

[Frofo Baggis]

Infodump sounds the best from that list.

 

[Cheesy Beavy]

Nigger, Josh hasn't caved to the pressure. He's requesting a term exchange so he doesn't have extra shit to deal with.

Sure I get that, but are the jannies going to go through all the thousands of threads and change it? of course not. Are the people of this site going to change? of course not. Is there realistically going to be a term change? of course not. He just doesn't want to deal with the extra bullshit that comes with the words "doxing", and rightfully so. His website. He does what he wants. But that doesn't mean that the user base and the language they use are going to change.

The fact that this subculture invented the term and abides within the law is irrelevant to what the average person now thinks of when they hear "doxing". That we are 'in the right' does not matter. The use of a word, which now describes a crime, to describe things which are not criminal, is detrimental to our interests and long-term prospects."

Most people now on average see "doxing" as "illegally acquired" info is correct. You can see this in my post history in the reddit general forum (too lazy to find my supporting photo atm). This definition has changed. If information is publically available in one form or another, now it's suddenly not doxing despite retards not realizing that if they signed up to vote their information is now public but you leaked my public address so it's a problem.

Again, I agree with this statement but it ultimately doesn't really matter imo. People will still continue to use the term. I get why papi Null wants to change it but it won't change and any new word we give it will ultimately be shunned.

It literally does not matter if nothing is wrong. Eyes will be drawn to it and then you will have to defend it, which costs resources. Resources are not infinite.

I totally agree. Not my website and not my resources. If papi Null wants to go through all the pages (along with his unpaid jannies) and clean up and enforce the "no saying doxing" rule then so be it. I'm in no place to enforce papi Nulls wishes.

I just find it hard to believe that after a decade+ of using the word "dox" people are going to change. It's realistically not going to happen. And sadly Papi Null has to deal with the consequences of people releasing public info.

 

[.iota.]

But I have had posts deleted before, so where are we w/r/t s.230?

not to derail the thread, but it keeps coming up, so ...
deleting a post is not editorializing; altering a post is (or could be construed as such in a court of law).

Spoiler: more

think of it this way: a newspaper has complete control over what gets printed, because the publishers of a newspaper literally select, edit, and print everything themselves. legally, they are solely responsible for everything that is printed in their newspaper. if you submit a 'letter to the editor' that's defamatory, or that they simply don't like, they can choose not to publish it, but they cannot edit your letter to say something that you did not write without accepting legal liability for doing so.

section 230 of the cda prevents every site on the uppercase-i-internet from being held to the same standards as a publisher, so long as the sites enjoying those protections don't act as publishers by editorializing (censoring, editing, word filtering) user content. they can put your post on a hold, they can delete your post, hell, they can put you as a user in temporary or permanent time-out for what you attempt to post, but if they alter your post to say what they want it to say, rather than what you want it to say, they're in effect accepting responsibility for the altered post. it could then be legally (and rather persuasively) argued that the site also accepts responsibility for everything else that its users post, thus forfeiting its section 230 protections.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

phonebookin an shit.

 

[average stupid idiot]

I like phonebooking. "That's it, you're going in the book."

 

[I'm a Silly]

not to derail the thread, but it keeps coming up, so ...
deleting a post is not editorializing; altering a post is (or could be construed as such in a court of law).

Spoiler: more

think of it this way: a newspaper has complete control over what gets printed, because the publishers of a newspaper literally select, edit, and print everything themselves. legally, they are solely responsible for everything that is printed in their newspaper. if you submit a 'letter to the editor' that's defamatory, or that they simply don't like, they can choose not to publish it, but they cannot edit your letter to say something that you did not write without accepting legal liability for doing so.

section 230 of the cda prevents every site on the uppercase-i-internet from being held to the same standards as a publisher, so long as the sites enjoying those protections don't act as publishers by editorializing (censoring, editing, word filtering) user content. if they do that, they're in effect taking responsibility for the altered post, and it could be legally (and rather persuasively) argued that the site is responsible for everything else that its users post, as well.

I see what you mean, but in my case, the posts were part of a conversation in which at least 2 parties were quoting one another. As half the conversation was deleted via a post, the result looks censorious and editorial.

 

[Sooty Soot]

Did Mooning just BTFO all of the doxxing competitors?
>Has a double meaning, and a clever pun on Null's name plus the lunacy react, unlike sunshining
>Is something the mentally insane do, lolcows are most of the time mentally insane/retarded
>Is something you choose to do willingly to the public, akin to when lolcows post their information publicly
>Will universally be understood, as mooning is a constant of human culture while phonebooks are gone and forgotten
>Won't appear to be anything more than a joke to people who don't know the double meaning
Where is YOUR evidence to back up your ridiculous claims about moonings competitors? By all means. read the whole text. i promise you that you can't debunk it.
>inb4 i get told to shut the fuck up by someone who hasn't read the above and got triggered by the FACTS
>inb4 someone says something about zoomers
>inb4 someone says something about newfags
>inb4 someone copies this and changes all references to Mooning
>inb4 "sage"
keep the discussion on topic and don't do anything that is mentioned above in the inb4 section. You should be open minded and read this carefully instead and discuss it WITH SOURCES.
i'm open to having my mind changed. but only with reliable sources that explain why mooning isn't the best replacement for doxxing.

 

[Rain Team Pepe]

Infodump sounds the best from that list.

That's the one I'd go for, agreed.
It's simple and direct while sounding casual.

 

[♦️ King of Diamonds ♦️]

So when do we get rid of "nigger" and "faggot" too? I mean those hardly help the site either.

Funny enough, in the United States- while it may be perfectly legal de jure to say racial slurs (and this is something SCOTUS has upheld), it has more or less become illegal de facto in many jurisdictions. I'm not even talking about the societal consequences like getting fired- there's been some cases floating around in federal and state courts in recent years where the mere utterance of the N word publicly has had some prosecutors charge them with "criminal incitement" and "civil rights intimidation". They really don't even need to pass hate speech laws like they do in Europe- if they wanna make an example out of you they're gonna get you one way or another.

 

[Kinoplex Robert]

Proposing 'Sauron(ed)(ing)' I've always been partial to describing the archival efforts by posters here in that way.

 

[IdiotPlusPlus]

Whatever is picked it needs to have a snappy variant for faildox for the inevitable, I like that 'infodump' can have 'faildump' and 'receipts' can have 'failceipts' tho the spelling looks weirder that it sounds lol

 

[RedMage]

Consent Accident would be a humorous alternative to use.

But majority of us have not done what Thwomp dong gone Jones has done.