Why host dox? - On the "utilitarian value" of hosting dox

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Do you thing KF should host "full" dox? (name+Address and more)

  • Yes

    Votes: 102 42.7%

  • No

    Votes: 30 12.6%

  • Only visible for members

    Votes: 92 38.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 15 6.3%
  • Total voters
    239
Carpalorbit said:
Being mentioned on Faux News =/= politically important.
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand then. When Kiwi Farms users are making national mainstream news with false claims that they are threatening sitting politicians, that is the definition of being publicly involved with politically important people. It doesn't matter how you feel about the "news" source. Regardless how you feel about the specific politician even, other politicians see these claims and associate these things with the website. Denying that is retarded.

I realize I may still not be articulating my point. It's already happened. The site has already been seen as a threat to politicians. This doomer attitude that some politician is going to be slighted and shut it all down is fucking gay and dumb.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Autistic Gunspergings, Ether Being and 2LtMashengo
trans rights said:
Given that doxxing is illegal in various different states in the USA, even back when this thread was originally made, it seems like a good idea to not allow it on your forum.
Click to expand...
When was the last time those laws were used to prosecute somebody?
 
trans rights said:
Given that doxxing is illegal in various different states in the USA, even back when this thread was originally made, it seems like a good idea to not allow it on your forum.
Click to expand...
Define doxx and what is illegal about them. Illegal content isn't allowed here. Maybe some things like copyright fair use are a bit flagrant at times but otherwise...
 
I would support opening courtesy requests specifically for removing someone's home address, only if one of the following conditions are met:
  • The current courtesy removal request rules apply (not currently a public figure, and inactive for over a year on all known accounts), regardless of whether the person is a minor, or was one when the thread was created.
  • Every mention of the address has been removed from all known sites and profiles of the person, and he/she hasn't made any posts revealing his/her current address in the past year. (This includes posting photos or videos in or around what is recognizably his/her house, e.g. CWC.)
  • Every mention of the address has been removed from all known sites and profiles of the person, the person can provide evidence that children or pets are currently residing at the address, and the person can provide evidence that he/she or someone living with him/her have been contacted at the address, or otherwise actionably threatened, as a direct result of the address being public.
In all of these cases, the request would still fall to a community vote, much like how we handle traditional courtesy removal requests. Any other information considered "doxing" would be untouched outside of a traditional courtesy removal request.
 
trans rights said:
I don't know. California had one since at least 2010: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=653.2.
Click to expand...
People vs Celis ; Blackmailed victim by trying to frame them as a sex trafficker
People vs Shivers ; Breached a TRO to harass an ex-partner
People vs Libich ; Felony stalker, had his BDSM fetish slave harass his baby momma for months
People vs Rosa ; Felony stalker, waged a months long harassment campaign against his ex-wife
People vs Coleman ; Breached probation to harass the ex-wife he previously kidnapped
People vs Crittenden ; Felony stalker who spent two months harassing a deputy sheriff
People vs Casco ; Harassed the defendant of his lawsuit by falsely advertising her as a prostitute

In all the case law involving 653.2 it comes with somebody repeatedly stalking and threatening the victim, who is often a domestically abused former spouse of the perpetrator. Doxing, as defined by California code 653.2, requires the intent to cause fear to the victim or their family to be actionable, and it seems like that's how it's being applied, from looking at the case law

It really requires that intent, as demonstrated with a pattern of deliberately menacing and threatening behaviour, to be an 'illegal doxing'." A pseudonymous nerd on the other side of the world posting "Hahaha look at this faggots house" is still perfectly legal in the United States.

But thank you for your concern and looking out for us, please don't hesitate to let us know if you think we're at risk of getting in trouble. I'm always glad to see decent folk posting here who care about trans rights and free speech protections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moths, I Love Beef, Autistic Gunspergings and 2 others
Daddy's Little Kitten said:
A dox is illegal if the information is obtained illegally, I think.

Most doxes posted here are obtained using public information.
Click to expand...
I remember the ChibiReviews thread on PG has the password for a lot of his accounts.
I really doubt that was obtained legally (even if the user who posted is not the one who got it).
 
Recently a couple people have been complaining about me doxing some trannies in the bluesky thread.
Celso Bin Portiolli said:
I remember the ChibiReviews thread on PG has the password for a lot of his accounts.
I really doubt that was obtained legally (even if the user who posted is not the one who got it).
Click to expand...
Running someone's email through a 10 year old databreach to find a password they used isn't illegal. In fact, sites like dehashed provide a fancy GUI to let you do just that.
Using that password to gain unauthorized access to their accounts would be illegal though.
 
Here's the thing you do not want your house and home address posted all over the Internet do not post your face all over the Internet don't have a Facebook and use pseudonyms everywhere I'm not that old and I came around right at the tail end of web 1.0 and everyone was still using not the real names on anything you considered gay for doing so.
 
trans rights said:
Those cases seem to just be ones that were appealed.
Click to expand...
Acquaint yourself with Brandenburg v Ohio. That's the current precedent for first amendment protections when it comes to things like "intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety" and it has barely been nudged since it was decided in the 1960s. Saying "Bob Smith is a bad person who should feel bad about his terrible actions, and FYI he lives on 123 Elm Street" does not even come close to being outside the protection of the 1A under Brandenburg's standard. "Bob Smith is a bad person who should in a just world be redacted in Minecraft and lives on 123 Elm Street" comes close but still likely would be allowed on appeal (but don't try this at home, kids.) You pretty much have to get down to "we are going out to bring down Bob Smith tonight, I have the duct tape right here and he's located at 123 Elm Street" ie conspiracy to be clearly outside the protection of the 1A.
 
trans rights said:
Those cases seem to just be ones that were appealed.
Click to expand...
Fair enough could you point me to some case law where anybody was convicted under 653.2 without also committing serious threats, stalking, harassment or other crimes against the victim?
 
As Europoor I am amused how US, the land of free, has every information regarding every individual living in US somewhere over the web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back