If there's an internet celebrity that I hate, I'll go and fabricate screenshots that allege them being a pedophile. Then the idiots on this idiot forum will go harass this celebrity both online and offline. And I'm chuckling all along. The cycle continues.
I’ve seen many examples of this evidence. Sometimes these consist only of screenshots, which can be easily fabricated.
I’ve seen many examples of this evidence. Sometimes these consist only of screenshots, which can be easily fabricated.
Let's ignore how you don't have any specific instances to cite and entertain your point; court filings also accept screenshots as court exhibits, so I don't see how you've identified this to be an issue specific to this website. In fact, you can do exactly the same thing you're describing in virtually every website. The only separating factor would be whether the personally identifiable information included in such a post is against the "letter of the law" of the particular website.
However, if that IS your point, then you undermine it by ignoring how "idiots on this idiot forum [going to] harass this celebrity both online and offline" is against the "letter of the law" of this website. Seems like a half-baked point built on faulty assumptions to condemn something which isn't even permitted by this website.
Now, if the issue is strictly the personally identifiable information, then blame the US lawmakers for making it wholly trivial to buy and sell private citizen's private information on public websites. If you want to address the issue, then you don't go around plugging up individual leaking holes because there will always be another hole. Let's say you get Kiwi Farms to institute rules against posting this information... everyone who comes here for that specifically will go to Doxbin or Soyjak Party. If those get taken down, a new one arises, because the underlying point of contention is still legally permissible.
Finally, and most importantly, if you find a screenshot to be insufficient evidence to validate a claim, then say so in the context of that discussion thread. This final point of yours is the most baffling; you're concerned that people might find flimsy evidence to be convincing, and as a result, the website rules should be changed
not that such flimsy evidence is no longer allowed to be posted, but that we don't mention their names or addresses or phone numbers or email addresses because someone who sees the flimsy information, which would still be permitted to post, might find it believable and then take action of their own accord? You really didn't think this through.
Hey, wasn't there a lady who just killed herself because she was harassed online and offline due to flimsy allegations? Was that on here and with screenshots and enabled by our site rules? Oh, no, that was on Reddit and they didn't even have screenshots to validate their accusations. Are you sure you're confronting the right website?
I don't believe there's anything in place to prevent false accusations. Don't you thinks that's a problem?
It's a problem with humanity. False accusations plague every single website. Always have, always will.
If you care about false allegations, then why not start this conversation on websites which you frequent? I mean, you never posted here except these 6 posts, so why would the false accusations tucked away on this website pertain to you more than the false accusations on Twitter/Youtube/Facebook/Discord/etc.?
The only perfect solution is to chaperone all human interaction ever, and it sounds like you desire the position as human interaction monitor... except your primary action would be to disproportionately target this website despite your concerns transcending this space entirely. Hmm, my intuition tells me that you have a deeper personal investment as to how allegations, on this website specifically, are veted.
So, who is your e-daddy who was alleged to be a pedophile on here with only screenshots?
