• [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Blocking out the names but not the @s was certainly a choice. Or was the inanity part of a stealth advertising campaign where people point out the inanity and thus call attention to the @. The internet’s friggin weird.

    • Retrograde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve honestly never seen the point in blotting out people’s handles unless they’re saying some seriously incindiary stuff

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Given how bad most name censoring is, I think most people doing it don’t actually want to but also don’t want to be accused of blatantly violating rules requiring it.

      • It’s a pretty stupid rule to extend protections against doxxing to publicly visible usernames. They’re already posting publicly with that name. Even with them blotted out, you can search for the text or reverse image search and find it in 2 seconds.

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yeah but 95% of people will be too lazy to do that and this will probably be enough to avert most brigading that might happen. I think this is about ad-hoc harassment campaigns more than doxxing which evokes more organized and focused harassment campaigns.

    • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I just do it as a courtesy to the people as I’m usually making fun of them in forums they didn’t originally post in. It’s not like I’m thinking about it as being doxxing, more just that I’m poking fun at someone behind their back - if they’re a public figure that’s one thing - but the average Joe? Just feels impolite. That’s why I do it anyway.