Your entire argument is a reductio ad absurdum that deliberately conflates an ontological problem (is this real?) with a pragmatic one (how must we act?).
You are placing an impossible epistemic burden on operators, demanding they be omniscient polymaths who can instantly discern veridical data from fictional trivia across all global cultures. Your "well-known" examples are merely artifacts of your own cultural priors.
The only prudent and scalable rule is simple: if a post is prima facie doxxing, it is treated as such. The operator's duty is not to become a scholastic debating the reality of your data, but to act prophylactically-at no detriment to any legitimate discourse. Your post is a disingenuous attempt to rules-lawyer a policy whose intent is perfectly clear.
(Score: 5, Touché) by kolie on Monday October 27, @06:17PM
Your entire argument is a reductio ad absurdum that deliberately conflates an ontological problem (is this real?) with a pragmatic one (how must we act?).
You are placing an impossible epistemic burden on operators, demanding they be omniscient polymaths who can instantly discern veridical data from fictional trivia across all global cultures. Your "well-known" examples are merely artifacts of your own cultural priors.
The only prudent and scalable rule is simple: if a post is prima facie doxxing, it is treated as such. The operator's duty is not to become a scholastic debating the reality of your data, but to act prophylactically-at no detriment to any legitimate discourse. Your post is a disingenuous attempt to rules-lawyer a policy whose intent is perfectly clear.