Sociopath Community

Whorechata said: 

My understanding of the dox rule was:

If it is your dox, you may request a mod to take the dox down. The dox was open to be anything covering pictures, addresses, phone numbers, social media of that particular person.

Just to make sure: If you post a pic, once, of your face that cannot be traced back to your real identity then you're not allowed to remove pics of your face that others post that will be traceable back to your real identity?

So are we changing the dox rules? Why are we changing them now- what was the catalyst for this?

The catalyst was that I thought the dox rule was something else than TC did.

Turncoat said: 

I don't think you can say two pictures are equivalent from a dox-risk perspective just because they both happen to look reasonably similar. 

Why not? It's about how much it reveals about the person if you were to spot them on the street. 

It's not only about that. It's about what you can actually get from the photo. If it's reverse-searchable and it leads to your full dox then it's not just about vanity.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

I don't think you can say two pictures are equivalent from a dox-risk perspective just because they both happen to look reasonably similar. 

Why not? It's about how much it reveals about the person if you were to spot them on the street. 

It's not only about that. It's about what you can actually get from the photo. If it's reverse-searchable and it leads to your full dox then it's not just about vanity.

...so you're arguing that all people'd have to do is change like 5% of the picture so that it doesn't flag websites like Tinyeye? 

Again, have you ever used reverse search before? Have you seen where it usually pulls results from? They only grab from public places, not even Facebook now. 

Turncoat said: 

...so you're arguing that all people'd have to do is change like 5% of the picture so that it doesn't flag websites like Tinyeye? 

Again, have you ever used reverse search before? Have you seen where it usually pulls results from? They only grab from public places, not even Facebook now. 

No, I'm arguing that mods cannot really determine whether a picture might lead to a dox or not. Therefore mods should delete on request (unless it's a heavily tweaked pic or the person in question has posted it themselves).

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Facebook all the time lol. My face, for instance, is on several public sites around the net that I don't have access to. Those could definitely be reverse-searched.

Cain said: 

I say if you are trying to never show face and somebody leaks it... (Bad)

If you show face, and somebody finds a picture of you that you dislike (Your Bad) 

I really wish we still had the Luna records. 

Turncoat said: 

Cain said: 

I say if you are trying to never show face and somebody leaks it... (Bad)

If you show face, and somebody finds a picture of you that you dislike (Your Bad) 

I really wish we still had the Luna records. 

Me too.

I think we all agree that pics shouldn't be taken down due to vanity, so the quotes you're posting don't really add much to the conversation. I'd like to hear what these people think about the doxing aspect.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

...so you're arguing that all people'd have to do is change like 5% of the picture so that it doesn't flag websites like Tinyeye? 

Again, have you ever used reverse search before? Have you seen where it usually pulls results from? They only grab from public places, not even Facebook now. 

No, I'm arguing that mods cannot really determine whether a picture might lead to a dox or not. Therefore mods should delete on request (unless it's a heavily tweaked pic or the person in question has posted it themselves).

So... you're saying we should make it down on request for any photo that isn't the exact photos they've posted themselves because maybe it could link to something?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Facebook all the time lol.

It's a typical example for social media, and I bring it up because they used to be connected to Google search results. Past a point they as a company chose to not have it link as directly as it once did, and around that time they gave their users privacy options for their profiles. They are a very easy example to call on over their practices being what often sways other social media platforms around them and for being notable for it. 

Other websites have privacy practices and TOS terms to save their bacon when it comes to this stuff, so most of what we've gone for has been a principle matter of self-accountability. It's not really our problem if what someone posts here links to their social media, but it is our problem if that data is then directly posted on here. 

My face, for instance, is on several public sites around the net that I don't have access to. Those could definitely be reverse-searched.

You haven't posted your face here, so isn't this kind of a moot point? 

I've treated it like this:

if a specific photo is posted by someone on SC by themselves, it becomes a non-dox photo.

if this photo is reposted by others while its a non-dox the reposts are also non-dox

if ever all instances of this photo in its non-dox state are somehow deleted (even those posted by others), then this photo is now a dox and can be requested to be removed if reposted again.

Ofc if another photo, even if showing the same body part/s, is posted by others, it is a dox.

I didn't know it extends to family tho.

Turncoat said: 

So... you're saying we should make it down on request for any photo that isn't the exact photos they've posted themselves because maybe it could link to something?

Any photo we can reasonable determine to be of them, yes. There are obviously more corner cases but those can probably be left out.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Facebook all the time lol.

It's a typical example for social media, and I bring it up because they used to be connected to Google search results.

If your overall point is that it's really easy not to have reverse-searchable photos of you on the web then I disagree.

Other websites have privacy practices and TOS terms to save their bacon when it comes to this stuff, so most of what we've gone for has been a principle matter of self-accountability. It's not really our problem if what someone posts here links to their social media, but it is our problem if that data is then directly posted on here.

Whether other sites have ToS that protect them or not doesn't really matter though, does it? Either we care about the dox risk or we don't.

My face, for instance, is on several public sites around the net that I don't have access to. Those could definitely be reverse-searched.

How'd that happen? 

Also you haven't posted your face here, so isn't this kind of a moot point? 

It's called having a life.

So my whole argument is a moot point as long as I am safe? Lol.

Whorechata said: 

My understanding of the dox rule was:

If it is your dox, you may request a mod to take the dox down. The dox was open to be anything covering pictures, addresses, phone numbers, social media of that particular person.

However if it was a dox of that persons family member or friend, then that family member or friend must register and ask for it to be taken down but that's easy to fake as well looking back at what happened with Pink01; she asked for her dad's dox to be taken down and when called, her dad had no issues with it being up.

So are we changing the dox rules? Why are we changing them now- what was the catalyst for this?

 because tc has an issue with med so he doesn't want to do his job.