Speculation, that's all it is. And this speculated piece of information has greatly impacted a real person's life. Speculations, if made public, should be clearly stated as such, not as facts. Once the information (true or false) is out there, people have received it and it can't be taken back. Sharing one's speculations with the world doesn't seem like a responsible thing to do.

I think the internet doesn't do it to us, we decide to be involved and behave the way we do.

With the internet and now-available communication technologies, I think many privacy-related boundaries that we considered existed and took for granted are now gone or have changed. Unfortunately it is no longer a personal decision to become publicized, now anyone can publicize others, unfortunately, without their consent. This lack of consent is what makes it invasive.

Informal > unregulated > unaccountable > potentially dangerous and abusive

I think this situation shows that it isn't only the original publisher of this story, Rosey Blair, responsible for this invasion of privacy/anonymity, but also all those who put an effort into finding out who the woman (involuntarily) involved was and publishing her personal information, specially after she had denied consent to do so.

I applaud the author for being honest about at first getting caught by it, and mentioning it here because it can make us all increase our awareness of how easy it is to unintentionally get involved in things we are against of.

Important statement that reminds everyone how important it is to be careful and aware.

Concise and clear statement to which I agree.

I disagree with this thought, because I think that if someone stands for something, it is better for them to say it than to hide it. If it's something harmful to others, then this transparency would allow others to be prepared and careful, or the authorities to control it, if necessary.

I agree with this idea. If doxxing in this case means making the name of people who openly go out in public supporting a cause available, then I think it isn't wrong.

When protesters take the streets, they want to be heard and seen, which consequently makes them identifiable. Nowadays that also includes being recorded and the spread of those media records.

I agree with this man. In this case, doxxing seems to me like a negatively-intentioned response to a negative action.

I think everyone is responsible for their actions and must be held accountable for them; whether it is being a neo-Nazi, uncovering one or shaming one.

I find it interesting that being veiled is an idea instead of a fact. Also, I think this sentences exposes the vulnerability of being "veiled".

This is a big problem when we rely so much on technology. We should trust technology (eg, facial recognition), but always verify before making claims that could harm others.

This is a very interesting fact and legal loophole... I wonder why does it still exist if those in power are aware of it? Whose interests is it serving/protecting?

Evidence is what makes information reliable, not a source. Even the top experts are human and can make mistakes or present information from a particular perspective, without being neutral or impartial; but evidence presents undeniable facts.

This made me reflection on biases. If our research methodology is biased from the very beginning, then everything that comes after will also be biased.