receiving some harassing comments, at least one of which was related to Blair’s speculation
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.
the medium’s dissociative effects prevent us from centering the humanity of the people involved
I think the internet doesn't do it to us, we decide to be involved and behave the way we do.
invasiveness of celebrity and how it can eat away at every boundary you ever took for granted.
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 forms of power
Informal > unregulated > unaccountable > potentially dangerous and abusive
Respondents to the original thread, in thrall to the “love story” and eager to thwart Blair’s half-hearted attempts at anonymizing the pair, soon found and shared the woman’s Instagram.
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.
letting myself get caught up in what felt like a made-for-TV drama. Then I realized that was precisely how I was treating these very real people.
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.
charm disguises the invasion of privacy
Important statement that reminds everyone how important it is to be careful and aware.
Thrusting random people into viral fame can be a messed-up thing to do
Concise and clear statement to which I agree.
she believed, was an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism.Editors’ PicksReal Estate Thought It Was Invincible in New York. It Wasn’t.Here’s What’s Happening in the American Teenage BedroomBeloved Berlin Currywurst Stand Delivers a Bite of HistoryAdvertisementContinue reading the main story“Some of what is happening now will make these white supremacists realize why their grandparents wore hoods,” Ms. Wilson said. “At least then there was shame.”
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.
are you really doxxing a person if he or she is marching on a public street, face revealed and apparently proud? It is not as though they are hiding their identities.
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.
aggressive
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.
“There was this idea that you were veiled and then uncovered.”
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".
A few individuals have been misidentified
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.
there is a law that defines domestic terrorism but not one that charges people who commit acts of terrorism in America.
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?
all the blue checkmark really does is say that the person is who they say they are, that they are the person of that name and not an imposter.
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.
It’s not enough to check the stuff that is suspicious: if you apply your investigations selectively, you’ve already lost the battle.
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.