Beware ATS Your Anonymity may be at Risk

a reply to: DBCowboy

I've just read my post again and I've failed to notice where I've defended anything. Can you help me out DB?

This is a topic I'm indifferent on, I too have public information online. The doxxing many people talk about involves public information.

It's not all that different than free speech...

Do you believe someone should be punished for shouting fire in a cinema or do you think an individual should be investigated if they tell a cop they're going to kill somebody? Ya know, public stuff...

I think we'll agree...

Now, do you think our rights to privacy can be infringed legally for things we said in private or "anonymously" on the internet?

Cry me a river, Ray.

I'm laughing DB, just like I was laughing when people flip flop on rights because it's a Muslim terrorist being stripped of their nationality or the illegal surveillance of suspected terrorists.

I don't flip flop on things I believe in, although you're welcome to prove me wrong.

a reply to: RAY1990

I defend the left when the right does it, I defend the right when left does it.

I stay consistant, Ray.

Now when it happens to a right wing site, I'll expect you and Sookie to run to their ####ing defense, but I won't hold my breath because I haven't seen it yet.

You are free to say whatever you want, though you are not free of the consequences.

This is as satisfying as the first time I was old enough to tell my mom “because I said so”.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think there's a reasonable potential for regulation regarding "outing" people.

as people were getting DOXed and or canxed. I did ask the question if it was wrong if you think you were slandered to go down a legal path about it?

Within reason I'd say definitely. There's plenty of cases in both our nation's where information released/scrutinized has ruined lives and livelihoods, sometimes the information is inaccurate or outright fabricated... It's a serious issue.

There's a potential for serious consequences in regards to doxxing, I'm not sure how I'd feel if someone was charged as an accessory to murder for doxxing. A bit of an extreme I know but the US has had some big cases involving swatting which I believe the charges usually relate to harassment and illegal retrieval of information... I think anyways.

Idk. It's a tricky one. If someone says they like shagging sheep and uploads videos of the act I fully believe they should be convicted for beastiality. As for people losing livelihoods for alleged crimes or personal opinions? I guess it would depend on their employment contract and state laws (in the US) although I personally find it somewhat apprehensible. There's too many potentials to have a black and white opinion, ideally this is what courts and their ability to scrutinize are for.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Stop being a drama queen, I'm not defending anything. There's little I can do about US law or politics anyways, I'm merely commenting on a topic that has relevance in both our nation's.

When it comes to law and order I'm all for equality and the same goes for rights.

I stay consistant, Ray.

I never said you didn't.

a reply to: Xtrozero

True, I think most of it is directed at Sookie who sees this as an infringement on her rights while she defended much of the same thing as people were getting DOXed and or canxed.

Please cite where I have defended the doxxing of any body, that wasn't already a matter of public record, like donors' lists or advertisers, for example. For the record, I am against "dark money" in politics.

Again, this isn't about me. I never claimed that this action is an infringement on MY rights. I've never posted on The Daily Kos, and I'm not a member at the DK. I post here, on ATS. But, this isn't even about them. It's about any one of us potentially being hauled into court because something we posted, because someone with money can, regardless of the merit of their case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And this is us telling you that this step you are suddenly upset about is the natural outgrowth of what happens when you allow Big Tech to do things like censor the president of the US for mean Tweets, something I note you did not stand up against. Nor have you stood up against examples of blatant censorship by the powerful against the less powerful so long as it was the left leaning moving against the right.

Now that monster that you have helped enable through your own inaction is still hungry and we've been silenced. It's turning on you.

a reply to: Violater1

I do network infrastructure cabling, and some camera system installations. If you are a home user and have a watchguard, you are better protected than most small businesses. Do updates, do backups, redundancy is key.

And remember, you never know who you are talking to, but always know who's watching you.

a reply to: ketsuko

And this is us telling you that this step you are suddenly upset about is the natural outgrowth of what happens when you allow Big Tech to do things like censor the president of the US for mean Tweets, something I note you did not stand up against

This isn't about Big Tech. It's about a social influencer and would be politician who is mad that someone exposed a side of him he didn't want exposed.

And, I support online communities, like Twitter, et al, enforcing their T&Cs equally, and not turning a blind eye to politicians who violate their rules. If you're so upset about Twitter banning Trump, I would think that you wouldn't like this move one little bit, either, but from your posts, it pretty seems that you are okay with it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

This isn't "cancel culture" is litigious intimidation.

Which is a tool of the cancel culture.

No, it's a silencing tool, used by powerful and monied people, against disenfranchised anonymous voices of "The People". You can't "cancel" The People, but you can intimidate them into silence, by threatening to economically ruin them through endless litigation.

The cancel culture IS a silencing tool.

Leftists upset about a Leftist writing an "outing" article in a Leftist online publication about a Leftist politician feigning outrage about Leftist policies. HMMMM something fishy.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms And Conditions Of Use

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Imagine being upset about a culture that YOU defended

Next thing you know, the OP will claim that it’s NOT ok to burn innocent people’s businesses to the ground and murder police officers

Leftists are pathetic

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Oh wow I didn't even know you could make your own haha that's pretty cool

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And I will repeat - THIS IS AN OUTGROWTH OF THE SAME BEHAVIOR AND IMPULSE.

All of it is anti-1st Amendment. You can't get upset at this is you haven't been upset all along, and your voice has been conspicuously absent in the outrage department thus far.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Niemoller

Guess what? They finally came for you, and there is no one left to speak out for you because you did not speak out for any of us.

originally posted by: ketsuko
All of it is anti-1st Amendment.

No it isn't. The 1st is a restraint on the US government.

Neither platforms enforcing their T&Cs or this guy seeking to file a lawsuit as a private person against another private person is anti-1st Amendment.

Also, the difference between those two things is that the former has to do with the contract a user of a platform enters into in regards to content they post and the latter is a matter of the owners of a platform being forced to reveal the identity of one of their users, a matter of privacy more so than free speech.

a reply to: daskakik

Yep, and you knew there would be someone who would continue to justify this anti-free speech behavior. I guess this one doesn't start to nip at your nethers yet ... or maybe you live in a foreign country.

a reply to: ketsuko
I do live in a foreign country but that doesn't change the fact that neither situations mentioned are anti-1st Amendment and that they are are also different matters.

When you sign up to a site, like ATS, "you" give up your right to absolute free speech during your use of the site.

Also, the matter in the OP isn't about a user breaking the T&Cs they agreed to.

a reply to: ketsuko

All of it is anti-1st Amendment. You can't get upset at this is you haven't been upset all along, and your voice has been conspicuously absent in the outrage department thus far.

You're cherry picking outrage that must match your own. Just because my outrage doesn't parallel yours doesn't mean I've been silent. I have defending freedom of speech, a social media platforms' right to enforce their own T&Cs, spoken out against "Citizen's United" and dark money in politics and a culture of lies that affect people's lives.

Again, this isn't about me. It's about a legal precedent being set in the courts that could effect all of us, right, left and in between.

Please stop attacking me personally and making this about me. Please stop defending and making excuses for the whiney snowflake, Robert Kennedy Jr., who's asking the courts to force a social media forum to unmask a poster, no different from you or I, so that person can be hauled into court and sued as an example, regardless of the merit of the case.