Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
Devil’s advocate:
You can either protect everyone’s privacy, or you can protect no one’s.
Doxxing is a privacy issue. It’s not “okay if it’s someone you don’t like”. I’m sure if the tables were reversed and people on the right had doxxed a bunch of left-leaning people, the left would be up-in-arms about it, demanding that it be removed and for the people who posted it to be suspended. But because they’re far-right, it’s suddenly okay?
I hate the far-right, don’t get me wrong. But get off the high-horse. Companies can either protect everyone from doxxing, or they can protect no one from doxxing. There’s no in-between just because the people being doxxed are people you find repugnant.
blueryth@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
The problem playing devil’s advocate is you’re defending the devil. Running to the all or nothing edge is simply an attempt to end the discussion. “If Nazis can’t have privacy, nobody can.” There is an in-between, and conveniently it’s called moderation.
Are we equally of the opinion that hate speech should not be moderated? Are threats without action to be defended unilaterally? It’s not important what the answers are, it’s that there is a world in between absolutist ideals. There are alternatives. We can discuss them.
Companies are also capable of navigating this space, and should be responsible for doing so if they are entitled to their platform. The idea that their hands are tied to all or nothing is ignorant if not apologist. If the best you can do with 10’s of millions of dollars is helplessness, perhaps you deserve all the criticism. The devil needs better attorneys.