So the other day I saw a video lambasting TJ, The Amazing Atheist,
for a shite argument in one of his videos. The video in question was TJ’s
response to Naked Ape calling him out on a double standard. The contention by
Naked Ape was that TJ has condemned people for doxing in the past yet included
Atheism Is Unstoppable (hereafter ‘AIU’) in a collaborative video despite AIU
having doxed people. We’ll get to that claim itself shortly.
TJ’s response was most definitely shite: he strawmans the
issue by equating direct collaboration with consumption of an individual’s
media products; he sidesteps the double standard accusation by effectively
arguing that he doesn’t have standards, and finally tops it all off with a
balls-out argumentum ad populum (“I’m The Amazing Atheist, who the fuck are
you?!”). Suffice to say, TJ didn’t come out of that looking good, and he didn’t
even try to actually defend AIU’s position.
Naked Ape has since clarified his position: He considers
revealing real names to be doxing; he has a zero-tolerance approach to doxing;
AIU has revealed names; hence Naked Ape considers AIU to be a doxer. TJ
included him in a collaboration ( of mostly stupid questions, of which AIU’s
may have been the stupidest. Sorry, it’s just how I feel about it); collaborations
tend to help expand subscriber bases; Naked Ape states TJ’s actions therefore
assist AIU in doxing. Finally Naked Ape concluded that he will be taking a
break to fuck his boyfriend and play video games. Hear, hear!
Since TJ’s video argument was essentially a verbose and
obnoxious way of hiding under a rock, I don’t much care to parse the double
standard issue. Instead, let’s cut right to the heart of the matter: is AIU
actually a doxer?
AIU has commented briefly on this recent argument before
basically saying “Fuck it, I’m out”. He does admit to revealing the names of
five people. He asserts however that this is not doxing as only the names were
revealed and not anything one would consider actually private or sensitive
information. Naked Ape asserts that this equates to doxing as a name is enough
to find more information and the act of revealing a name as part of public discourse
invites the more amoral members of the audience to go ahead and finish doxing
the individual.
Support for Naked Ape’s view can be found in the UK’s Data
Protection Act, which says: ‘personal data’ means data which relates to
a living individual who can be identified - (a) from those data, or (b) from
those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to
come into the possession of, the data controller. However, the DPA
covers personal data to be collected and stored, and does not explicitly apply to public discourse, so this question is far from settled.
Since it is difficult to narrowly define doxing, let’s
rephrase the question to:
Is AIU’s naming of five people acceptable?
Is AIU’s naming of five people acceptable?
Naked Ape and ‘Kraut and Tea’ say that breaching anonymity can
be very dangerous for some people who live in the wrong country etc. AIU agrees
with the sentiment expressed but does not see how this applies to the five
people he named. He assures us that people like Kraut and Tea, whose anonymity
protects them from illiberal laws or violence are very much on his ‘do-not-name’
list. He also reminds us that he himself lives in Germany too.
AIU says that he can’t stand being anonymously called a
racist. He says that if people want to attack him and not his ideas by labelling
him a racist, they could at least sign their name. Critics of this position
tend to view the naming of anonymous people as also effectively directing
attention to the person and not the idea (i.e. the accusation and its merit, or
lack thereof). Generally further commenting that (a) anonymous accusations are
easily ignored, or (b) that revealing names is not the appropriate response to
being slandered. AIU retorts that since he uses his real name then simply the
accusations, if allowed to pile up, are damaging and equates the internet to
the Wild West where people must protect themselves instead of relying on the
law.
While I can understand the different viewpoints on this
issue, i cannot agree completely with any position that I have yet heard (or
read). When making costly criticisms of someone, i can agree that it is
unethical to do so anonymously without good reason. I draw the line now though
as, while it may well seem safe to remove someone’s anonymity, that is not
anybody else’s decision but their own. At the same time I can see how frustrating
it must be to constantly face slander associated with a real name, which must
be used in offline life. Especially from people who hypocritically hide from
the same exposure they inflict on others.
In conclusion I find that while AIU’s naming of people was
unethical, I do not agree that it was clearly immoral. In other words: while it
may tarnish his reputation for maturity and/or professionalism, it does not
reflect especially negatively upon his moral character.
CORRECTION:
I mentioned that AIU only commented briefly on this - I was incorrect, the videos I saw were redacted from a much longer video published slightly earlier in which AIU fully expresses himself.
