That site is more of an aggregater of news with short summaries and gives links to the source stories. I should have linked directly to the NY times story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html?
That site is more of an aggregater of news with short summaries and gives links to the source stories. I should have linked directly to the NY times story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html?
Oh I see. I've never visited that site, so I can see how that might be useful. It just wasn't what I was expecting.
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
EDIT: A much better article, thanks again.
Oh I see. I've never visited that site, so I can see how that might be useful. It just wasn't what I was expecting.
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
EDIT: A much better article, thanks again.
What's with this article? The title is literally as the title is in the post, but then makes absolutely no mention of it whatsoever in the article itself. If anything, the article is supporting doxxing and people who engage in it, and makes no mention of any kind of "risk" or how individuals might accidentally identify someone who isn't what they believe they are.
Seems like just a clickbail title to get you in and then talk about how good doxxing individuals is. Editor and author are both junk, in this instance, for letting it out with such a misleading title.