New answers tagged

3

This is a classic example of a Loaded question or Begging the question: OP presupposes that revealing the whistleblower's name is doxxing, rather than opening it up for debate. Therefore this question can only be answered in two parts. No, it is not acceptable if it's actual doxxing The definition of doxxing from Wiki is: Doxing, or doxxing (from "dox", ...


9

No, but I am unsure that this qualifies as doxxing. Although this answer argues that posting the name of the purported whistleblower is not acceptable or advisable, I'm going to argue differently. I think the Acceptable Use policy leads to precisely the opposite conclusion, and that even from a broader perspective there's little reason to omit the ...


6

In another case from the last 24 hours, the flag was declined arguing that it has already been posted by other sources so it's fine now (quote redacted because it too has the name for some reason). It's a very difficult situation. Since the quote applies to one of my posts, I'll elaborate on the dilemma. In my answer, I quote a politician's tweet which is ...


-7

Here it is completely unacceptable, as with most other platforms. I will get into why later. However, as a whole ethically the issue becomes more complicated. The right to anonymous speech should be respected to a point. The ethical question really is if the person's actions you are stripping them of their anonymous nature for is considered speech. ...


2

Code of Conduct - Stack Exchange [...] No harassment. This includes, but isn’t limited to: bullying, intimidation, [...], direct or indirect threats [...] "Obvious" cases of "doxxing" must be covered under harassment. It would make no sense to exclude "doxxing" from this definition. From the first article I found about these claims - it takes care to ...


46

Likely covered by existing policy in the form of the Acceptable Use Policy? (Some emphasis mine.) Identity Theft and Privacy. Users that misleadingly appropriate the identity of another person are not permitted. Users may not post other people's personally identifying or confidential information, including but not limited to credit card numbers, Social ...


2

The main problems with this edit: It completely changed initial meaning. Author of these edits and rollbacks violated rules (contradicts author's intent/vandalism). Author of these edits removed lock (which was supposed to prevent edit wars) and started edit wars. If we assume that employees may not follow their own rules, everything is ok... And few ...


3

What was wrong with initial version of question and why is was unacceptable? Reading the original version of the question, it appears in all ways to be a bad faith post. It claims to be asking about whether this policy applies to Ru.SO, but as-written it shows no indication about misunderstanding the policy, and makes absolutely no arguments about why this ...


Top 50 recent answers are included