← Back to context

Comment by JoshTriplett

2 days ago

I mean, the ideal amount of nuance is to not ban this in the first place"; right now we're talking about damage control for particularly critical subsets of uses.

> Universities typically own housing as well.

I'd expect that argument to carry negative weight with the folks trying to do this, given the hate they have for universities in general, and the love of privatization.

10 comments

JoshTriplett

Reply
OGEnthusiast  2 days ago

> critical subsets of uses

I don't consider rich people trying to hide their identity to be "critical" at all. Maybe having their address public will be a way to force them to act with consideration of the community instead of just themselves for once while they hide in some anonymous mansion.

  • JoshTriplett  2 days ago

    > rich people

    What part of "people at risk of doxing" made you jump to "rich people" rather than, for instance, "people in groups commonly attacked"?

    > force them to act with consideration of the community

    By doing what, precisely? "Have you tried not being (commonly attacked group here)?"

  • psunavy03  2 days ago

    So basically you're subtly encouraging violence and intimidation, and want that to be easier than trying to find someone's "anonymous mansion."

  • yrxuthst  2 days ago

    Rich people aren't the only ones that want to hide their address. Stalking/DV victims can use this too, or even just a regular person that prefers privacy.