j.r. leonard

1/ If you think that anonymous accounts shouldn’t be allowed, then doxxing is, by definition, a disciplinary action. That’s not necessarily bad. We should just stop pretending it’s something else.

No it's not. I don't think you should be disciplined, or @trumwill, or @burtlikko, any more than I think anyone who isn't legally allowed to get blackout drunk and drive down the freeway is being 'disciplined." Rules are not punishment. Punishment is punishment.

I have my own reasons for preferring a semi-pseudonymous online presence. Why don't I get to decide if, when, and how to change that? N.b. I am not a public figure of any sort and if you're actually interested in me enough to doxx me, chances are you need a better hobby.

There are legitimate reasons to want anonymity: you have a stalker, you are a confidential informant, etc. None of them apply to this case. He wants to remain anonymous because he wants to get paid for being a jackass without paying any of the costs.

The thing is, though, that if no one were anonymous someone being stalked and harassed would know who was doing it and could report it to the authorities. My big picture: when consequences are cleaved from bad actions, people do monstrous things. Not everyone, but enough.

I honestly feel this way prior, but if I hadn't my spending time with Sandy Hook families this past year would have cemented this for me anyway.

Not respecting the individual at issue here, but more generally: who decides when a person legitimately can use anonymity and when that person is abusing it? The police? Buzzfeed? Google? Donald Trump? Candace Owens? What criteria are to be used making that decision?

On Twitter? I think it should be a blanket rule. I'm not proposing a select group get anonymity.