• Bonus @lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    How is that defensible? Are there no laws to tamp down online terrorism from bad actors like Heritage? I’d imagine they’re 100% in the wrong for making threats of any kind but I’m just a wee layman.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s defensible because it’s public record. Wikipedia has been doxing editors by default for decades. It’s one way that they intimidate people from making edits.

      • Bonus @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’ve never edited anything there but log in sometimes just if I’m interested in a topic and want to bookmark it. This is making me think I should just delete my account.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          You should not make that decision only because of this conversation, what if they are massively misinformed?

          • Bonus @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Truth. Good point. I’m waiting till I get myself more well informed. Thanks.

    • RushLana@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      The issue with “Wait that’s illegal” is that it never work in practice.

      If the heritage foundation decide to dox an editor tomorrow. The editor in question would have to file a lawsuit and go against an army of layers the heritage foundation can afford. Even if the editor win at the end, it will be a long and drawn out legal battle where heritage risk almost nothing.

      And this is not accounting for the editor having to deal with harassment due to being dox while having to pay for a layer and fighting a legal battle.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          They absolutely should be. Them being so doesn’t stop the problems from happening.

          It literally gives people in the US the constitutional right to due process, and that bedrock law is being massively ignored.

          There needs to be actual protections for when the law is not being followed

    • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      The internet is, by nature, problematic in terms of legal compliance because it is not wholly under the jurisdiction of any singular country.

      You can go after hardware physically located within your own jurisdiction, and you can go after operators under your jurisdiction. But if you start going after folks/hardware outside of that, you’re rightfully going to be told to fuck off. (Which is why IP holders burn so much money on anti-piracy lobbying and get practically nowhere)

      Its the same reason encryption bans are laughably idiotic.

    • Geodad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      No laws? Sir/ma’am, we have the 2nd amendment. I can’t think of any law higher.