I think that's an even stronger argument for why doxxing is wrong, really.
Possibly. But I see the term itself as unclear. If I interpret it as "rendering public the true identity of an anonymous personality", then I can point out real and theoretical contexts where it's legitimate, and making a blanket statement against it would make me ill at ease. If we define it as illegitimate cases, then okay, but for the definition to not be circulary, it requires precise criteria (motives, boundaries, etc) to distinguish it from legitimate identity outing.
If we roughly define doxxing as lifting anonymity beyond the situations deemed acceptable by journalitic codes of good practice, then of course, it's by definition inacceptable. But if the term stays vague, then it can be co-opted to denounce journalistic good practice. I prefer emitting judgements on precisely described acts in precise contexts, than on trendy neologisms.
That's all fine and dandy, except society largely doesn't trust the mainstream media, whether it's commentary on a scientific study or commentary on an event. Even the most apolitical people can identify that when the media on one week tells you not to eat eggs, 'cause it's bad for your cholesterol, but the next week they mention a study that suggests that eggs lower your cholesterol, then return to saying it's bad for your cholesterol, that they're absolutely full of it. Everyone knows and understands that reports of national disasters are overblown. Frankly, as little as people trust the government, they trust the media even less, which is a really bad position for the media to be in, and largely why this journalistic code of good practice/journalistic code of ethics is thrown out the window in favor of internet sensationalist news: it's unfortunately more believable to alot of people, even when it's absolutely made up. And we've all heard the stories of the media taking bribes to support a certain political cause. Forbes condemns using "special interest" as arguments Also the media on special interest
I don't think i really trust the media after that.
Likewise, I'm an against killing, capital punishment, and militarism. But I find it philosophically dangerous to trust an absolute on that, given the diversity of exemples or thought experiences that may be hurled at it. Same goes with lying (Kantian imperatives undermined by consequentialism), etc...
I just don't deal well with generalities. In general. And when a crowd (any crowd) pushes to endorse them or be deemed a traitor, I tend to exit it.
I understand the hesitation to take absolutes, as then you won't be able to put them back on the table if we finally find a case where it is legitimate. However, that's the point of free speech: In the event that we find out a previous stance was incorrect, you have the right to denounce yourself on why you were wrong. On the same token as taking something off the table when you might later find a legitimate reason, failing to take something off the table that should be allows people (and ultimately yourself) justified in using it or supporting it under extreme emotion to support something that you would end up later condemning (or at least silently wishing you had). I don't know the details of post 129 of this thread, but i would imagine something like an absolute stance would've been useful.
However, society functions on the basis that we trust the law, or at least we trust it enough not to revolt against it and commit to vigilantism, which is a softer insurrection.
Basically true, but there again, I could shower you with exemples of perfectly justified civil disobedience. And I don't think that anyone (whatever the political stance) would contest all of them.
I can think of a few examples, as well, but these were insurrection and no one would deny it, and that was the point: challenge the government and force them to make a choice whether or not they would enforce unjust laws that society disagreed with. These were at times when society, because of changing opinions on the laws, did not trust the rule of law to be fair (african-american rights movements in the US prior to, and including, the 1960s are a classic example). The notable point of separation from doxxing, however, is that the state was the target offended upon, because it's the state's job to change to meet society's expectations, not an individual's.