JasonADrury

The blog post was written by AI. "luxury" is one of the adjectives AI likes to use a lot.

> The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever

The DDoS hasn't even successfully taken the website down, so your objection is entirely ideological.

It's a pretty messed up ideology if attempting to take down a website is worse than potentially subjecting someone to violence by attempting to dox them and sharing your work.

Where did I ever argue that?

It's obviously not "a-ok". It's just "meh", a silly childish tantrum.

>the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d”

I double-checked all my comments, that never happened.

>The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone.

What's the true, practical impact being downplayed here?

Nonsense, by the mid-aughts google searches and whois lookups were key tools for doxing. If you had been around in the hacker scene at that time, you'd be well aware instead of trying to inject fabricated mystique.

We called this exact pattern of behaviour "doxing" on IRC in the early 2000s, I really don't know why you think I'm using some new definition.

It's probable that in the later 00s this would have been called a "faildox", but it's still just a fundamentally dick move to try to identify someone online who doesn't want to be identified. It doesn't matter if you do a completely shit job at it.

Ulysses is not enjoyable.

You've caught me!

Of course attempting to dox someone is an attack.

Right, yes, because the people doing this totally don't know that they're breaking the law?

>Also documenting who funds a service is in the public interest.

Not really, no. It's not unlikely to result in the service ceasing to exist.