Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Memory.lol

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Memory.lol

#31

Post by anigbrowl »

dcow wrote: post #26
woodruffw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The README is pretty explicit: it's an archive, meaning that any "doxxing" is whatever the original user accounts uploaded about themselves. That would be a pretty radical deflation of a term that's normally used to describe forcefully deanonymizing someone with information they didn't provide. And I don't see a call for harassment anywhere. The author clearly has opinions, but there's no call to action.

You either have no idea who travisbrown is or support this type of behavior. He literally harasses people he doesn’t agree with by defaming their character on any platform and/or forum that doesn't kick him out for breaking community guidelines and CoCs. I’m pretty liberal and think that fits a modern definition of harassment.

Defamation implies falsehood. I'm fine with people being called out for things they've actually said or done.

Re: Memory.lol

#32

Post by kitschyred »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #9

I reported[1] this repository, which seems to be encouraging doxxing or harassment of social media accounts the repository owner (a leftist, from the look of things) doesn't like, to GitHub. [1] https://support.github.com/contact/report-abuse?category=rep... EDIT: implicitly encouraging

The phrase "he doesn't like" is doing a lot of work in this whole thread isn't it? Makes it sound like Travis is scraping other people's data for not having the same favourite colour that he does. However, the people presented as examples in the README are nazis, scammers, homophobes and transphobes. It's an interesting way of minimising calls for genocide.

Re: Memory.lol

#34

Post by senectus1 »

googlryas wrote: post #2

So basically a database to help you doxx people you have issues with.

Doxx or hold people accountable for what they say online?

If someone says something of their own free will then puts it in "writing" on the internet of their own free will should they not be accountable for things they say and did of their own free will?

Personally I suspect this might be a useful tool for teaching budding new internet users that they're not anonymous when they hit "send". But like any tool that ever existed, the potential for abuse is definitely there.

Re: Memory.lol

#36

Post by dcow »

anigbrowl wrote: post #31
dcow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either have no idea who travisbrown is or support this type of behavior. He literally harasses people he doesn’t agree with by defaming their character on any platform and/or forum that doesn't kick him out for breaking community guidelines and CoCs. I’m pretty liberal and think that fits a modern definition of harassment.

Defamation implies falsehood. I'm fine with people being called out for things they've actually said or done.

I am too. It’s totally fair to say “this person said that” and even add on “and I don't agree with it”.

But travis very very liberally and unduly applies very serious and damaging labels to people.

“This person didn’t immediately agree with me that this other person is an alt-right white supremacist so they’re a transphobic racist” is not okay.

That’s is where I draw the line. One can make a statement of fact that travisbrown doesn't agree with or for which the implications make the left uncomfortable and he’ll label you a white supremacist racist transphobic bigot which these days can be career ruining. I support people’s freedom to express themselves but I also think we need to hold people accountable for unduly and deliberately trying to ruin people’s lives.

Re: Memory.lol

#37

Post by dcow »

kitschyred wrote: post #32
nathanaldensr wrote: post #9

I reported[1] this repository, which seems to be encouraging doxxing or harassment of social media accounts the repository owner (a leftist, from the look of things) doesn't like, to GitHub. [1] https://support.github.com/contact/report-abuse?category=rep... EDIT: implicitly encouraging

The phrase "he doesn't like" is doing a lot of work in this whole thread isn't it? Makes it sound like Travis is scraping other people's data for not having the same favourite colour that he does. However, the people presented as examples in the README are nazis, scammers, homophobes and transphobes. It's an interesting way of minimising calls for genocide.

… according to him (and you can’t ignore those examples are hand picked to support his agenda). Personally I’m tired of social vigilantism. Let the law punish these people if they’re really what he calls them. If they’re not harming you don’t go looking for trouble.

Re: Memory.lol

#38

Post by dcow »

woodruffw wrote: post #29
dcow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either have no idea who travisbrown is or support this type of behavior. He literally harasses people he doesn’t agree with by defaming their character on any platform and/or forum that doesn't kick him out for breaking community guidelines and CoCs. I’m pretty liberal and think that fits a modern definition of harassment.

You're right, I didn't know who he was. But I read some of his posts just now. He's clearly very angry (it's not healthy to be so angry), but I also don't see anything that meets a standard of defamation. He seems to have receipts for just about every potentially defamatory claim he makes, which presumably come from this big Twitter archive of his.

He’s actually been sued for defamation and there’s a bunch of history that isn't on his public Twitter account.

Re: Memory.lol

#40

Post by woodruffw »

dcow wrote: post #38
woodruffw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I didn't know who he was. But I read some of his posts just now. He's clearly very angry (it's not healthy to be so angry), but I also don't see anything that meets a standard of defamation. He seems to have receipts for just about every potentially defamatory claim he makes, which presumably come from this big Twitter archive of his.

He’s actually been sued for defamation and there’s a bunch of history that isn't on his public Twitter account.

Okay. I'm going based on what I saw on his blog. I'll reserve further judgement.

(Barring a conviction for defamation, I don't know what a suit says. There have been a handful of defamation lawsuits in the tech community over the last decade, all(?) of which ended in embarrassment for the complainant.)

Post reply on HN