I’m trying to understand the accusation because it doesn’t make sense to me. There was no doxxing. There was barely a sort of recognition of a picture of the staffer, when approached on a public forum about the topic of the staffer by someone eff holding a picture of the staffer.
-
-
Replying to @feministleaning @arthur_affect and
So, like, if you're in a thread with a bunch of people that hate someone, and you post a picture of them like, "This is that person you hate," that's pretty straightforwardly doxxing, yeah? No real wiggle room. You published their personal info, and in a troubling context.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @eggynack @feministleaning and
This was not substantially different, from what I can see. She pointed to an online picture and said, "This is the person you're looking for." If you think about it, this is just straight up how doxxing generally works anyway.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @eggynack @arthur_affect and
It is substantially different from what I can see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @eggynack @arthur_affect and
Context and expectations of anonymity. I havent seen the anonymity clause that Arthur referenced, I didn’t read the article published and I didn’t see the comment, but based on the story explained in the actual motion above, it is a completely different context.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @feministleaning @arthur_affect and
Why should I expect less anonymity in someone else's avatar than in any random online image? Generally, the idea is that people who know you can identify you by sight and people who don't cannot.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eggynack @arthur_affect and
I’m not sure that’s a fair assumption given the reverse search Arthur mentioned as being known by everyone and used by everyone.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @feministleaning @eggynack and
This is the "Well your name is in the phone book" argument Most people don't run a reverse image search on every single image they happen to see on the Internet unless they've been told they have some reason to do so
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @eggynack and
And posting a picture on your profile and then affirmatively Tweeting at someone about one of the people on your picture means doesn’t preserve an unwritten “you’re not allowed to comment about my publicly facing pictures”commandment
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Agreeing to keep someone's identity anonymous is a WRITTEN commandment and it doesn't go away because discussing their identity becomes very tempting ("But she was standing RIGHT THERE")
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @eggynack and
It depends on what the anonimity clause says. And it’s interesting that the motion didn’t mention it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @feministleaning @arthur_affect and
Frankly I don't see why "it was technically not breach of her contractual obligation" would even be a defense here. "In case any of my supporters are listening, here's where to look for that meddlesome priest," is still reprehensible even if you didn't break rule to say it.
0 replies 2 retweets 15 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.