why are you still talking to me? go bother someone else

Those people at conferences don't try to force my hands though. If they did, sure people would be less welcoming to their desires.

Free @ralf doxx his fren the grinder Wtf will. Bother someone else . You run a business. You must respect privacy. This makes no sense. This isn't about you. But it is good that you are showing your true colors in how you handle other people's privacy. 👎

"Try" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Also, it would be more akin to the "anonymous" person sending a photo of themselves to an untrusted party and expecting people to not share that photo.

> When you are together with these people and they take off their masks, we all know that we dont take pictures or videos of them. I agree. I see this as some kind of trend here already. Not just literal doxxing; it's even broader. So depressing. And yet I'm not criticizing anyone, don't get me wrong: we clearly co-share at least some basic anarchistic values here, whatever we believe freedom is, censorship resistance is, etc. So we do whatever we believe we are supposed to be doing to protect our values. As far as I see, from the limited context presented here, William has dealt with the attack on the most important value he pursues here (censorship resistance) combined with (potential) legal pressure. So that was his defense action; I don't identify it as something radically dishonest when I look from William's perspective. Also taking his financial situation into account as well, which may be a significant risk in case of a real legal action towards his company. Yet I'm personally sure that *unnecessary* doxxing (yeah, I've got a criterion if anyone's interested) is a self-damaging and ironic contradiction to one of our own core values here: privacy. I don't agree that the full private email content is the same thing as "he doxxed themselves"—nope, he clearly didn't expect it to be published. That's a healthy thing to publish the takedown requests, but only when the other side is aware of that term before they intend to send any request. The "doxxed himself" position is ironically a complement for data breaches that come from KYCed organizations, as if it was something acceptable: a client "doxxed themselves" in order to survive in some trappy place, where nothing but credit cards is accepted now, so what's the problem, right? Very fucking huge problem. Obviously, if we attack someone else's privacy—that means we allow others to do the same with us; we present this behavior as an acceptable and possibly useful social norm. William stated that he doesn't care about his reputation in this case. My guess is using the same doxxing weapon towards him is not an issue for him personally either; he most likely accepted it as a norm as well (correct me if I'm mistaken). Yet that will likely be an issue for those who will semi-unconsciously copy this behavior as an acceptable norm, those who are less mature, less socially adapted than William. Whoever does the doxxing may believe it's good for them, until they make some little mistake in some private communication too, which will be exploited harshly against them. That would be an unintentional, blindly copied self-harming action, replicating further. I see this chaotic social domino is unfolding here already; that's my main concern. I believe that's one of the reasons why we have wars in whatever meaning, out of literally nowhere. And yet again, that's not criticism of the doxxing behavior itself. Or a naive pacifistic proposal. Just how things are. There's a proper context for every action we believe is acceptable. We always have the choice of how to behave and how to influence others with our actions. I personally believe we've got enough unnecessary drama already; time to focus on fixing things, not just technically.