SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DECISION – 'aristarchus':
Introduction:
Actions have consequences. This is not a matter of free speech or censorship.
Doxing "Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly revealing previously private personal information about an individual or organization, usually via the internet." This is the definition upon which we are basing this decision. Legally, the term does not appear to be well-defined in the US but doxing is also covered by laws relating to harassment, threats, and abuse. Elsewhere in the world, the definitions are sometimes more clearly defined but might cover a broader interpretation than the US definitions. Which interpretation is applicable could depend on the location of the perpetrator.
Background:
We first noticed that something was amiss in late 2020. Submissions from 'aristarchus' would contain certain words, phrases and names which were apparently unconnected with the rest of the content. We were unable to understand their significance at that time, but they would be meaningful to the intended victim. (Story submissions by 'aristarchus' often contain additional material that he has inserted himself.) In almost all cases we removed them prior to posting the submission as a story because they had no bearing on the rest of the submission.
In late 2021 the doxing became more blatant both in comments that were made to stories and as well as on IRC. We also contacted the victim (by now it was obvious to us who it was) who responded and explained what had been published, where and when. We also discovered additional material that had not been seen by the victim. He had been suffering this abuse for a considerable time.
Please Note:
This investigation is not something that has been carried out purely on a whim by the admins on this site. During it we have consulted with and taken advice from a representative of the board of directors. (As an aside, SoylentNews PBC has never been 'run' by 'TheMightyBuzzard' or any of the current admin staff whose names you know well.) This is a serious matter and the investigation was conducted with utmost discretion by a very small team.
To ensure that 'aristarchus' is aware of this Decision he will receive an Admin-to-User message and an email to the address associated with his username drawing his attention to it.
Publishing Personal Information:
It is now apparent that 'aristarchus' has doxed at least one person in our community, and possibly others who may have left the site rather than suffer the harassment. This is not a single act, but has taken place repeatedly over a significant period of time.
'aristarchus' has published the victim's full name, where the victim lives, and the victim's employer. Presumably he believes this information to be accurate. We have seen additional comments that contain threats and state very personal information, such that posting them here would likely do further damage. We are trying to be discreet. If it were you, would you want us to air all the information that has been revealed? This action might also have placed other members of the victim's family at risk from abuse or embarrassment.
It is obvious that 'aristarchus' has conducted research away from this site. SoylentNews PBC does not hold such information nor has it been ever been declared in any comments.
We can only guess at the true reason behind these disclosures: at the very least it appears to be a smear campaign.
What We Have Done So Far:
- The victim has a full copy of all the evidence that we have been able to trace to date. The evidence was all publicly accessible. We are not aware of a compromise of any other community members' information. We are not going to indicate where this information might be found.
- We have made a separate backup of the database to ensure that evidence should not be lost.
- We have removed personal information from database comments and IRC logs where possible.
- It is entirely for the victim to decide whether to seek legal redress in this matter.
Options:
There are 2 options open to us.
(1) Permanent Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a full and permanent ban from this community.
- His account(s) will be completely disabled.
- Any further posting he may make to the site will be treated as Spam.
(2) Temporary Ban
- 'aristarchus' will face a temporary ban of 3 months where his account(s) will be disabled. He will be able to restore his 'aristarchus' account when his ban ends. His conduct during this time will be taken into consideration before his account is reactivated.
- During the ban 'aristarchus' may still post on the site as an 'Anonymous Coward', with all the limitations that are associated with that i.e. no journal, no ability to moderate, etc. Whether he wishes to make his identity known in his AC posts is entirely up to him.
- During and subsequent to the ban he is to act as we would expect any other member of this community to act. He is not to disrupt other discussions nor is he to continue to complain about his treatment. The ban is entirely a consequence of his own actions. We will not discuss this matter publicly. If he has complaints he may contact us via email as usual.
- He is to refrain immediately and completely from harassing other members of this community.
- Any serious future abuses by 'aristarchus' can result in a permanent ban being imposed without further warning.
We acknowledge that 'aristarchus' regularly makes insightful and interesting observations and we recognize that he has many supporters on this site. That is why we have offered the option of a conditional Temporary ban.
Action/Conclusion:
'aristarchus' must now decide which ban he wishes to accept. This is not negotiable – there are no other options open to him. If he does not respond either by commenting here or by email within 48 hours of the release of this Decision then we will assume that he has chosen the Temporary Ban and he is bound by the conditions stated within it. He may elect to change to a Permanent ban at any time.
For legal reasons we do not intend to comment further. The community can now see why several of the site admins have been putting in long working days, sometimes in excess of 12 hours since just before Christmas. We are exhausted and need to have a period of normal activity so that we can recover. We urge the community to be circumspect and restrained in the discussions to this Decision – there is little to be gained from inflaming the current situation any further. We ask you not to speculate about the identity of the victim.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:27PM (36 children)
So, you feel that someone did something wrong enough to take action against them, but then let the wrongdoer choose their own punishment? And this is for wrongdoing that you consider serious enough that you won't comment on further because of "legal reasons". What the fuck? The message you're sending with this is "it's okay to do whatever the fuck you want on this site, because at worst any consequences will just be a temporary inconvenience."
I've always appreciated the lack of heavy-handed power-tripping moderation here, but when something happens that you think is bad enough that you feel the need to make an announcement and take action and refuse to discuss it further because of legal concerns, your response should be a bit more authoritative than "we'll let the wrongdoer choose their punishment". Especially when this wasn't just some one-time bone-headed mistake, but a long-term harassment campaign against one or more users.
I've been here from practically the beginning, but this bothers me enough that that's likely to change. I'm going to have to think more about how I feel about this before I commit to anything, but right now I'm leaning toward logging out, removing my RSS feed, and joining the others that have abandoned the site.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @04:45PM (18 children)
Suggestions? How exactly would you handle this situation?
Consider how easy it is to create a new personna. In ari's case, he has created at least 9 separate accounts on SN, probably more. How do you permanently ban someone who has demonstrated how easy it is to put on a new mask, or new puppet, and come back at will?
Staff has handled the situation as best it can be handled. The target of ari's harassment still has legal options available. If it seems necessary, those options may still be used.
Please don't leave. That would be a victory for ari.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Thursday February 03 2022, @05:17PM (2 children)
Well, first and foremost, I wouldn't let the offender choose his own punishment. I'd most likely start with the first option (ban user, disable account) but take it further by blocking the registration of any similar usernames in the future. There's value in a name and its recognition, and if nothing else that should be taken away as absolutely as possible to send a message to not just ari, but also to anyone else considering breaking the few rules the site does have.
Effectively removing someone from the site permanently is impossible, of course, but that doesn't mean no effort should be taken to do it at all. If someone has broken rules badly enough for a permanent ban to be on the table, then it should be followed through so that, for that person to continue "contributing" to the site, they'd need to change their behaviour and habits enough to practically be a new user, and be forced to start fresh with a new name and identity, while also living with the fear that if they get found out in the future, the new identity will be banned as well.
Considering ari's targeted me repeatedly in the past because I marked him as "foe" so I could make his comments have permanent -1 karma (and thus be auto-collapsed so I don't have to read them) and he had a problem with that (since he knew due to the site making foe settings visible to the other person), it would definitely be a victory for him, but I don't care. If the admins will let harassment go this far and still do basically nothing, it's arguably a risk for me to continue commenting here at all given his prior beef with me. Hell, for all I know he's tried this same shit on me in the past but I didn't notice because I don't see his comments. Or maybe considering how weak the response is, he'll feel empowered to continue doing it to others, possibly me, in the future if he hasn't already.
If that's what they want to keep around, that's their decision, but that decision brings consequences too, and other people like me may decide to jump ship as a result.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:23PM (1 child)
Agree - there is one person _that we know of_ who has been doxxed. There could be others that are in progress.
I sure hope he doesn't come to Kaoma, Zambia looking for me!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 04 2022, @05:29PM
Looking for you sounds expensive and inconvenient. :D
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:21PM (14 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 04 2022, @12:28AM (9 children)
I'm with you on this but I don't think it's ever going to happen unfortunately. As they say "be the change you wish to see in the world," I only ever post logged in, but it seems like almost no one else thinks this way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:05AM (4 children)
Please no. We ACs are not an organized group with ill intent, we are sometimes truly earnest individuals and sometimes shills; this is not arguing "but some fascists are nice people" this is "but some people live in environments which are unsafe but still deserve to participate in society."
If Dr. Li Wenliang had gotten the word out more successfully, where would society be today? If he were on SN, what odds of a different course?
Yes, textbots and autosocks threaten us. But this is why we mod; because as long as enough modders really do try their best to be impartial, the impact on the average user is truly minimal.
Some few users do see - and then mod down - the garbage; thank you. It's vile to open the wrong -1 post and it's filled with hate. Thank you so much for dealing with that garbage and downmodding. Like all sanitation work, the task deserves more public honour.
But we have this system specifically so that we can have a truly open-access discussion, which is priceless to some of us.
Sad maybe, pathetic maybe, but true for reasons none of your business, SN is my main community and social network.
Please don't take this away from we long term ACs. We have reasons.
I miss MDC. :(
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @11:22AM
I've been on S/N since the beginning, and at least half the vile posts are from "named" (actually pseudonym) accounts. Some "named" accounts are famous for it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 04 2022, @11:47PM (2 children)
The site's notional immune system has long since failed, that's my point. There were never enough earnest, good-faith posters to begin with, and it's an order of magnitude easier to shit on the rug than it is to clean shitstains out of the rug. Add that to a dysfunctional, barely-organized admin team with less backbone than the average tunicate, and the die was cast from the beginning.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @12:19AM
As I was saying...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @01:53AM
Respectfully disagree with that subjective assessment.
I browse here at default normally. Sometimes I go to -1 or +1, and when I do it's quite discernible. The system isn't perfect but we definitely DO have enough good faith posters and modders to make it a valuable space.
This is precisely what modding does; it takes time to post a shitstain, but very little time to mod it down, giving the good side an asymmetric advantage.
That advantage is lost to the pros who copy-paste from their library of garbage, and to the coming wave of textbots that will flood us with "argh that's a dumb human - or a smart bot? argh" junk.
But for now we're definitely winning. View some ~40-post article at -1 and at +2 and you'll very clearly see that by and large it works.
PS - you're one of the better informed voices that keeps me coming back, AH. Thanks in particular for your biology/medicine insights.
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Friday February 04 2022, @02:00PM
FWIW, I cannot remember having posted as an AC on SN.
I was tempted to post this one AC, just to try and get a lot of “funny” mods, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:00PM (2 children)
But given the libertarian bent of many, this was inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @07:42AM (1 child)
So you are saying that aristarchus could post whatever he wants, but the target should have been stopped from posting?
The journals are there for ANYBODY to post what they think on any topic. You want to choose who can do that though. That is not what 'free' means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @01:23AM
Yes, would've been a good idea. Still a good idea.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:42AM
... which is why you posted as an AC.
Way to be the leading light here.
But if that's what you like in life, I understand that the chinese government definitely thinks that way on speech, anonymity and so on. You should move there.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Friday February 04 2022, @08:46AM (2 children)
No, the simplest one would be to close the site. No site means no abuse on the site. It would also be a bad solution. But so would be your solution.
Fortunately the people running this site don't resort to simple solutions, but to good solutions.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:07PM (1 child)
Well, it's going to happen anyway. Even the original codebase hasn't been re-implemented. Where's meta moderation (which would have mitigated this whole mess)? Dead - never going to happen. And the editors admit it.
This was obvious a year ago, and rather than an open frank discussion looking for ideas? Nothing.
It most definitely will close at some point - or becomes even more of a circle jerk. But yes, it would be best to admit it's unsustainable as is and look for ideas or alternatives.
Maybe sell it for $10 million to Trump? It's got enough of his supporters floating around …
Then use the money to do something better, from scratch?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @05:53PM
Metamoderation doesn't fix things anyway. It just lends leverage to groupthink. If you want a pluralistic group, you have to allow for individual ratings. They've made it clear they explicitly reject that, so we're in groupthinkbubbleworld, and always will be.
(Score: 4, Touché) by RS3 on Thursday February 03 2022, @07:57PM (4 children)
Not to be pedantic, but the admins did not say that ari would have final say and that his decision would stand.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday February 03 2022, @08:04PM (3 children)
"Not to be pedantic", but you went ahead and decided to be pedantic anyway. The end of the summary makes it pretty clear that ari's getting to choose the punishment and have it accepted:
Sure, it doesn't explicitly state that, but it would be fairly pointless to offer a choice if there's no intent of honouring it. So you're being pointlessly pedantic here.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by RS3 on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:02PM (2 children)
So it turns out you're one of the ones who like to ad hominem attack people. So noted.
I owe you nothing, but for the sake of anyone else who might read this: perhaps the admins are offering ari a choice to see how he chooses, how he may comment on why, what his thinking has been, etc. You know, a test of sorts. Since the admins have all but stated they're not 100% sure what to do and how to handle the situation, it makes sense to me to try some things, experiment, and by this very discussion, see what the rest of us think.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Marand on Friday February 04 2022, @05:19AM (1 child)
Me saying that you're being pedantic while suggesting you're not isn't ad hominem. That's not an attack on you, that was criticism of your decision to open with "not to be pedantic, but... " while proceeding to do the exact opposite. It's like saying "no offense intended" and following it with an insult: you led with it because you knew the rest of your comment was being pedantic.
I don't particularly care that you were being pedantic; you're the one that brought it up first, so I called it out as being pedantic while couching it in weasel words suggesting otherwise.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @08:58AM
Marand, you are a living example of an ad hominem. Stop while you are behind.
[Strange, is it not, how so many Ari enemies are assembled in this one front-page article? Almost as if summoned by forces of alt-darkness. ]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday February 03 2022, @08:20PM (9 children)
Is it the fact he's given a choice that bothers you, or is it just the fact that you don't consider the temporary ban a severe enough punishment? They've been pretty clear that any further rule breaking would result in the permaban. To me that act of offering a choice reminds me of a disgraced employee being given the choice whether to resign immediately rather than face the shame of further discipline.
I'd say the staff seem to be handling an incredibly difficult situation pretty well. I must admit that I get really put off on a lot of other websites where the ban hammer is dropped suddenly on many users for the slightest infraction, so I'd rather they don't go too far the other way.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Marand on Friday February 04 2022, @07:25AM (8 children)
The fact that he's given a choice. I think that's a bad idea in general because the wrongdoer will always choose the lesser punishment out of self-interest, but in this case it's especially bad because it's tone deaf to the wrongdoing and circumstances.
Doxing someone is an act of control, power, and intimidation: asserting power over someone by intimidating them with a subtle, implied threat. The information's publicly available, so there's nothing wrong with the existence of that information, or even the collection of it. Where it becomes a problem is the weaponisation of it, intimidating the target by flaunting that knowledge to them, which carries an unspoken threat of "I have this information, imagine what I can do to you with it." It's like the mafioso trope of "Nice business you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it..." or not-so-subtly discussing your knowledge of someone's family and whereabouts during a negotiation: the knowledge isn't inherently bad, but it's being used to intimidate and control.
So, in order to punish someone doing this, the proposed solution is to let that person retain control. Letting ari choose the punishment is letting him retain power even in disgrace. If he chooses the punishment, he's still in control, which is contrary to the purpose of any kind of punishment.
It's like knowing somebody tortures small animals and then choosing to give them a new puppy. Or, to follow your disgraced employee analogy, it's like the disgraced employee is accused of embezzlement and dismissed from the company, but allowed to keep the money and also collect severance bonus. You're enabling the behaviour by "punishing" them with more of what they got from it in the first place.
That's so completely tone deaf that it bothers me. If the wrongdoing is about asserting power over others, then the punishment should reflect that by making that person feel powerless. I'm not an "eye for an eye" kind of person so I wouldn't suggest something as extreme as having ari be doxed in return, but I definitely don't think the punishment should be still leaving power over the situation in his hands. The admins or the wronged party (parties?) should have the power in this situation, and leave him feeling powerless while they choose the punishment.
That's also why, in the other comment when asked what I'd do, I said I'd specifically block use of the name in the future. Not necessarily block the user from ever participating, but require a completely new account and identity (so no "aristarchu_2" or anything), because a new account and identity is a form of removal of power and control from the user.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @02:39PM (7 children)
Dayum, man. When you spell out your definition of doxxing, it sounds just about like rape. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power, control, intimidation and humiliation.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:35PM (5 children)
I know that this view of rape is a popular one, and it's commonly repeated by (especially third wave) feminists and activists, but it hasn't actually stood up to psychological review.
Power and control, please note, are prerequisites for rape in the physical sense, they're baked into the process, but that doesn't mean that's what they are at the core. They're not the motivating factor. To confuse one for the other is to confuse ends and means.
Seriously, check out the literature, both criminological and cognitive. It makes for sometimes harrowing reading, but it's worth debunking this little ideological mythology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @02:38AM (4 children)
Which psychological topology do you propose as correct? Out of the major ones, they all include anger, power, and control as motivating factors for different types of rape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @03:32AM (3 children)
You have completely ignored at least one major one off the top of my head, which relates to reproductive strategies, and of course there's the recreational hypothesis - both of which presuppose power and control, are orthogonal to anger, and don't require power and control as motivating as opposed to enabling factors.
But those don't play as well with the followers of the likes of Dworkin, so they get less play outside the specialist field, and a lot less in the public arena.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @03:49AM (2 children)
So either you don't understand what a psychological topology is or you are positing either that all rapes are based on reproductive strategies or that all rapes are based on recreation. Since it probably isn't the latter, you could have saved yourself the effort and just said you don't know what a psychological topology is, how they are used, or which you think is true.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 06 2022, @05:25AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @04:28PM
(I do understand what a psychological topology is. My professors made sure that I did. It's not the only explanatory framework out there either, and not one that I favour for a number of reasons.)
Aside from that, I didn't feel like taking a position that there is a clear winning answer, but that some answers are clearly insufficient and at odds with observed facts. In other words, it's an open question to which some answers have been closed.
There's a difference. Now, go back to the people who taught you reading comprehension and demand a refund.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday February 04 2022, @07:56PM
I hadn't really thought of it that way when writing it, but I suppose you could make an argument for some combination of those four things being linked to many behaviours and activities that are considered negative and usually discouraged, even if not outright illegal. It makes sense, because abusing your power over someone, or attempting to control, intimidate, or humiliate them in some way, takes away their agency for your own benefit. You make yourself powerful by making someone else powerless, and that's generally seen as overstepping an important societal boundary. Bullying is bad because you make yourself feel powerful by making someone else powerless, for example. Harassment is about intimidation and humiliation. And so on.
Thanks to you and acid andy, I've ended up with something interesting to ponder that I'd sort of unconsciously understood at some level.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:46PM
One only has to look at the modern British justice system to understand why our British Editors would operate this way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:20PM
"comment on further because of "legal reasons"."
Until this story came out the target would not have known what it would say. If everyone is discussing each and every dox and expecting the staff to justify everything the target would have a difficult time getting a 'fair trial' if they wanted to take this before a judge. We would have discussed everything in public. That might be enough legal reason for them to not want to comment until the target has decided what to do next.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:05PM (1 child)
I'm now the administrator of a challenging forum and found enough in my experience to finish a book.
My experience has been that long-term intentional misconduct does not stop after temporary bans, and my opinion is that no amount of insightful posts can make up for destroying safety.
If it's still in Googlespace, there are lessons from The WELL's experience with "mandel".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:52PM
I agree but the problem is that none of the spaces I administrate and moderate claim to be bastions of free speech or allow anonymous posting to the extent this place does. Judging purely from the website, the staff here doesn't even seem to agree on some of the basics of the rules, let alone the more complicated aspects of the rules. Added together, you are almost asking for trouble.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Thursday February 03 2022, @06:18PM
I'd like to add myself to the number of people who have thanked the mods/admins/owners of this site for the time and trouble they have gone to to try and manage this situation in the best way possible. It is a thankless task - now with at least one thank you.
It is impossible to please everybody all the time, but your hard work is appreciated, and I am sorry you feel you have to spend time on this rather than other more constructive or enjoyable things.
Some people regard borders and limits to their behaviour as a challenge, and repeatedly test the boundaries. Not easy to deal with. It's like dealing with property boundary disputes, which can blow up out of all proportion according to the judgement of the uninvolved, but for people dealing with the issues, it is a huge time-sink and emotional roller coaster that can end up costing real money and permanently affecting relationships, often in bad ways.
Human nature is not always easy to deal with, and I laud people who deal with it in the raw.
Thank you again.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday February 03 2022, @07:32PM (14 children)
If this allegation is true then I am very disappointed in the perpetrator. Unfortunately, I am finding it quite difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where it is not true. And to those saying things along the lines of "How could you not see this coming?", I'm afraid this would be a step beyond anything that's been seen before and crosses a line into potentially causing harm away from the screen and keyboard, which is unacceptable.
I've updated my recent journal entry based on TFS.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 03 2022, @08:33PM
I suppose everyone has their limits, a breaking point, and it's not as far away as we'd like to think.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:24PM (9 children)
Ooh ooh now do Runaway1956's "50 million dead progressives" and the variety of other threats of violence from himself and other users. Personally I'm loving the hypocrisy around here, though I do hope it will lead to SoylentNews maturing into a better platform for nerdy discussions.
While doxxing is more direct don't forget to include the continued racism being spewed as a form of intimidation and harrassment. Though the fReE PeAcHes crowd will cry crocodile tears.
Yes it can be a slippery slope, but https://soylentnews.org/meta/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=47504&page=1&cid=1218254#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] is an example of hypocrisy. Spreading dangerous medical advice, supporting domestic terrorism, and harrassing a community with bigotry are apparently totally fine, but publishing personal information is a bridge too far? At least the victim is a single person.
Doxxing is vile, but what an excellent example this incident is making for the problems with SN ideology. The 1st amendment is to protect citizens from the government, not guaranteed access to a platform. The 2nd amendment is about citizens protecting themselves, with a clause to allow regulation. Libertarians need to drop their absolutism with regards to personal freedoms and realize there are always exceptions to every rule.
Just post the Code of Conduct already and run polls to gauge the community's response to various measures. If SN will remain a fiefdom then at least clearly post all the rules (codes of conduct) and stop pretending it is purely a community driven site. Time to grow up libertarians, even the ones on the tail end of life.
"We are living in toxic times, and they're bleeding into all of us." -Phoenix666
Indeed we are, and democracy is in great danger in many countries because a large portion elevates the toxicity to unprecedented levels e.g. the 45th POTUS. Since that boondoggle is still being argued about, with none other than Phoenix666 having voted twice for it, I don't hold out much hope. That isn't a partisan comment, personally I see valid points from conservatives and liberals. Toxic is as toxic does, and such concern trolling from a two-time Trump voter really says everything you need to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:41PM
The truth really hurts trolls' feefees, they want to have their cake and beat it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:47PM (2 children)
The "clause" you refer to, is explanatory. "The reason we demand this right, is that sometimes you have to fight for your rights, so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is not "a clause to allow regulation", as you suggest. Nowhere will you find contemporary correspondence to support your false interpretation of the 2nd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @01:26AM (1 child)
And now we are reduced to Runaway-like death threats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @02:06AM
There's no death threat in there, just a comment on the second amendment's structure - a comment which is backed up by the Heller case's judgement.
Or are you so stupid that you think that the mention of self-defence constitutes a death threat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:47AM (1 child)
I may be misremembering, but I'm having a really hard time thinking of any occasion of acid andy supporting Runaway on pretty much anything.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
(You obviously have analytical problems with the concept of civil liberties as well, but this site has plenty of authoritarian little jackboot-lickers, so that's not a disqualifying factor.)
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday February 04 2022, @01:09AM
You're not misremembering.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 04 2022, @01:53PM (2 children)
This exemplifies the tragic failure of our educational system and our political discourse. "Toxic" does not mean, "Anyone and anything that does not agree with me." But that is what you think "toxic" means. You rub your finger across others' words to blur the line to "toxic." Everyone knows "toxic" means "poisonous, bad for you." Then you can point to it and see, "See! Wrongthink is dangerous and bad for you. We must disallow it! Won't anyone please, PLEASE think of the children!"
You're not seeing it, but you are already standing over the line that keeps us from sending people to camps and committing other atrocities.
tl;dr: "toxic" != "disagree"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:40PM (1 child)
Ok fine you fark8ng NAZI! That better snowflake? You vote for a fascist twice then want to gaslight others for pointing it out? Did you already build your local gas chambers and ovens too? Christo-fascism is looming and *nyah nyah you're the reeeeel nazi* is the best you've got? Pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @02:03AM
Right.
Because the idiot who got shot taking hostages in that synagogue was a good ol' boy pentecostal, right?
Wait, he was a british, islamic dude ... Oh no!
Because the people in Congress desperately trying to get all up in Israel's case about Apartheid (which doesn't match what Apartheid actually was, by the way) are all hard-core, rock-ribbed republicans!
Wait, they're progressive democrats? No, no, no, this cannot be!
Because activists like Rachel Corrie are trying to win back the Holy Land for Opus Dei and the secret revived Templars!
... wait, she was a hard-core leftie from Evergreen State College?
AAAArrrrgh! Worldview collapsing! Mental state imploding! Noooo ....
Seriously, dude, the nuts with the collective hard-on for worrying about the diabolical hook-nosed jewish banker vampires are on the left these days, by a huge majority. A few lost neo-nazis who still think that Der Fuehrer had a few good ideas? Sure. But for the mainstream antisemitism you'd have a better chance chatting up your keffiyeh-wearing veganista at the local organic co-op, and it's been this way for over a decade, just intensifying.
But good luck on your deflections, keep punching that GW bobblehead and watching the spring bobble.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:02AM
If you don't expect too much then you might not be let down. The allegation isn't much surprise to some..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @09:01AM (1 child)
"If" it is true. Comes from the same sources that alleged sockpuppetry, with no demonstrable proof. Trust them, they claim to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @05:10AM
"IP logs are dropped after 2 weeks, we protect user privacy"
. . . . . .
"We can tell what IP hash the very first message on SN was posted from."
. . . . . .
"Sure I could build a rainbow table in a few hours to build a list of all the IPs"
-The Mighty Buzzard
Just a reminder that much of what is stated here on SN does not conform with reality. IPs have been logged since day one, with a trivially overcome hash added that they claim protects your privacy yet the former admin says he could rebuild in a few hours. What a farce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @08:58PM (15 children)
So nothing illegal happened, yet aristarchus is getting the ban hammer because he violated what most people would consider basic civility.
Along with the very clear Code of Conduct on the moderation about page we are finally seeing libertarians come to grips with reality. Been a long time coming, glad you political yahoos have obtained a smidgen of realization; though sadly I'm pretty confident saying it'll get buried as a one-off witch hunt and the Repub... LIBERTARIANS will go back to their stupid fREEdumb positions where they unironically try and cancel education, books, democracy and people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:16PM (4 children)
... and the rules of the site. So, kind of making private decisions on private facilities. Seems pretty libertarian so far. If Aristarchus wants to have his own site, let him. Nobody here seems to care. Still pretty libertarian.
Ooooh, I'm sorry, I didn't see the problem at first. My bad.
You're confusing libertarians and progressive democrats. Yeah, easy mistake to make.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:59PM (3 children)
One moron triggered, check! Yet another libertarian failure of basic comprehension. Thanks for doling out the lulz, maybe one day libertarians will create a viable political party instead of being republicans that like to smoke pot or the crazy weird fascist anarchists that threaten to rip a hole in the space time continuum.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:51AM (2 children)
"fascist anarchists"
... fascist ... anarchists...
Hm. That is a very impressive contradiction in terms. Fascists are authoritarian corporatists with a dirigiste, redistributory approach to economies, while anarchists are not any of those things. They're broken in completely different ways.
Want to try that rant again? More clarity, less foaming this time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @05:16AM (1 child)
Don't know what else to call supposed "libertarians" that screech about freedoms then turn around and support authoritarian corporate government with logic going as deep as "der fREEEEE markETTTTTTT!" Perhaps society will develop a term for such paradoxical viewpoints that self described libertarians that voted for Trump 2X claim to hold.
Don't blame the anthropologist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06 2022, @04:30PM
I'm not blaming anybody.
I'm suggesting that you take a few summer courses on political science and learn to formulate your thoughts more coherently, but that's on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:31PM (1 child)
> We have seen additional comments that contain threats and state very personal information
> It is entirely for the victim to decide whether to seek legal redress in this matter.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/federal-stalking-and-harassment-laws.htm [criminaldefenselawyer.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:00PM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:23PM (7 children)
Just think about it, this is the perfect crime to accuse aristarchus with, to justify censoring him, kinda like this:
Q.Who was doxxed by aristarchus?
A. We cannot tell you without doxxing the victim.
Q.What did aristarchus do that doxxed the victim?
A. See answer above.
So we have no victim, we have no accuser (except Ronan, or Rogan), we have no evidence of the action, so obviously Ari must be banned. Even better than accusations of sockpuppetry!
And finally, we offer aristarchus two options: he can plead guilty, and take a permanent ban, or he can plead guilty and take a temporary ban. Funny, I think he predicted that when his six-month mod-ban was over next month, some other pretext would be found.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:38PM (6 children)
Yup!
I mean he may be guilty, but the lack of transparency is troubling. If he has the doxxing info then he can just flood AC comments with it, which makes this whole thing rather stinky.
The downmodding of these points shows the clear bias of the site. Regardless of whether the claims are real the above comment points out a very real problem that everyone should think about, doubly so for those that are self-described "freedom of speech absolutists." Time to acknowledge the limits of that phrase and if this community is to stop cannibalizing itself we need more transparency instead of the vague assurances by staff. Yes there is a need a protect privacy, but that also highlights the problems of the site where a certain group of very anonymous people gets access to private information, with the bonus of that group having a history of mildly abusing their positions.
Good luck yall!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @10:53PM (5 children)
Stalking and harassment are not free speech. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:25PM (4 children)
You are corrext, though have a *woosh* for missing how that was the point. Totally reasonable to put limits on speech, but are we only going to use the US legal standard? Where is the line? How does that didfer from a Cide of Conduct that libertarians are so fond of freaking out over?
Truly free speech on SN is dead, and true to form in a most hypocritical manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03 2022, @11:57PM
Most jurisdictions have laws prohibiting stalking and harassment. The line is where legislators and reasonable people deem behavior becomes unreasonable.
Wrong and you've just had it explained it to you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:55AM (2 children)
Soylentnews was never a free speech site.
Never.
It always had limits. Some were imposed externally (kiddie porn makes governments kick down doors and shut down servers, for example) while others were internal, but it was always limited speech.
I have no idea what made you think anything different.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @02:23AM (1 child)
Oh gee how could anyone come to such a conclusion? You must be new here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:08AM
Totally new here. Yup, only been around since the discussions about creating it were going on, in the buckfeta days.
Been involved in many of those discussions, including ones on limitation in speech.
Tell yourself whatever little lies help you sleep at night, but there was always a crystal clear recognition that there would have to be limitations, even if only to keep the FBI from tearing the place up in yet another childporn-based PR exercise to bolster their relevance.
(Score: 5, Informative) by LaminatorX on Thursday February 03 2022, @09:38PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @02:43AM (4 children)
Aristarchus won. He got the admins to admit that there are instances where a ban and comment editing/removal is appropriate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @03:12AM (1 child)
Because they'd never even considered the possibility of kiddieporn!
OH, wait, they had, this is old news, and you're on crack.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:22AM
Dude can't afford crack. He's smoking the crystals he found around a puddle of horse piss.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @12:23PM (1 child)
Bullshit. Nobody won! aristarchus has discovered that doing illegal things is not OK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 05 2022, @05:07PM
This stupid drama is the 9/11 of SoylentNews.
(Score: 1) by shellsterdude on Friday February 04 2022, @04:29AM (1 child)
I'm fine with banning someone that does something actionable and concrete like Doxxing. I just think the site needs to be very careful to not expand such rules to banning people because someone's feelings got hurt. It is a very slippery slope to start inventing new categories of offenses (as most of the rest of the internet has sadly demonstrated). Doxxing is inarguably offensive to everyone (at least to everyone who is targeted), potentially illegal, and something than can be concretely shown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:23AM
Here's an easy way for me to formulate it.
SN is an 'owned' resource. The SN owners/controllers have some legal latitude.
What would we do if someone were posting 1mb posts to do offsite base64 backups, or pages of /etc/random? or thousands of n-slurs?
It's clear they're acting with such purely bad intent at that point that there's no real slippery slope. Those are abuses of the platform. Using the platform to dox is also such clear bad intent - this isn't just badmouthing, character assassination, etc., this is tacitly but clearly suggesting the information is provided in order to be acted upon. This is an attempt to suppress another member of our community through fear.
So this is fine, as precedent. There will be much harder precedents in future where bad intent may not be so manifestly clear., and defining that boundary will literally shape our community.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by stretch611 on Friday February 04 2022, @07:57AM (2 children)
SN needs more quality posters to survive and grow.
We are considering banning one person with posts of dubious quality...
If we deal with this person harshly (and any others in the future) we lose that one person.
If we fail to remove the problem, how many others will we lose instead. While some may consider it toxic now, how much worse will it be if not corrected. Then how many of the good posters will want to continue at all on SN?
Is a permanent ban appropriate?, YES
While many topics are open for debate in a civil society there is always room for disagreement. It is no longer civil if violence is used. Doxing is a violent action. Period. Even if a person is too cowardly to do anything themselves, Doxing is literally a request for others to violently harm the victim.
While the victim normally should have a lot to say about an attack on them, this is truly a case of what happens next time to the next person. Doxing is something where if you are willing to do it once, you are likely to do it again. Who will be the next victim because of a post taken the wrong way,
Personally I see nothing lost if a perm-ban happens... But I can see quite a bit of loss if it does not occur.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @04:50PM (1 child)
"Doxing is a violent action. Period."
Saying something, then adding "period" afterwards, doesn't make it true.
Go find a USMC combat infantryman, one with deployments and a kill count, and ask him about the difference between words and violence. Say, a drill instructor and a bayonet. One is loud and shouty, the other penetrates your body and lets the light in and the blood out.
This is as idiotic as the windowlickers who run around saying: "Silence is violence!" when in actual fact silence has no bearing on violence. Silence is an absence of sound, while violence is physical destruction.
"Even if a person is too cowardly to do anything themselves, Doxing is literally a request for others to violently harm the victim."
No, no it's not. It's the collection and publication of information. It may be paired with a call for, or a suggestion of violence, but no request is fundamentally involved or even implied. It might even be done for reasons of journalism, calling (for example) the corrupt to account on an accumulation of assets.
If you're confused about the whole data vs violence dichotomy, may I suggest some time in a warzone? It should clarify your thinking nicely while you apply dressings and hold drips.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04 2022, @06:44PM
Don't hold your breath, stunning hypocrisy seems to be the new requirement for participating here.