Reminder: Rule 1 of this site: No doxxing of site members

[antiliberalsociety]

There's the rub. How to know the truth.
I only know how to deal with pedos, afk. You would think whoever doxxed him would be able to rain fire and brimstone down on him, if he is a pedo. I would. Seems the doxxer is more interested in stirring shit, rather than fixing shit. Oh well.
I was gonna ask who did the doxxing, but i think i figured it out. kek
He's such a delicate little snowflake, when unable to bend others to his will.

He did it himself, dumb cunt.

https://archive.ph/hLlmj

That's on xyz. Did he post the same stuff here, or did you do it? You waste of grey matter.

@the_old_ones was right about you, you're a screaming harpie. You're not going to split hairs with the "it's anudder site tho!!" because that's no different than what TexasVet tried to entrap me with, and even on talk.loli - the very place they wanted me gone - sided with me.

https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=60f8946901b84

Your hubby needs to slap that attitude off your face.

[shewhomustbeobeyed]

He did it himself, dumb cunt.

https://archive.ph/hLlmj

That's on xyz. Did he post the same stuff here, or did you do it? You waste of grey matter.

@the_old_ones was right about you, you're a screaming harpie. You're not going to split hairs with the "it's anudder site tho!!" because that's no different than what TexasVet tried to entrap me with, and even on talk.loli - the very place they wanted me gone - sided with me.

https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=60f8946901b84

Your hubby needs to slap that attitude off your face.

So you posted the doxx. Good to know. I'm right about you, again.
My husband wouldn't hit me. But he would bitch slap the fuck out of you. Right after they let you out of ICU, cuz i get to beat yo ass, first.

[antiliberalsociety]

That's on xyz. Did he post the same stuff here, or did you do it? You waste of grey matter.

@the_old_ones was right about you, you're a screaming harpie. You're not going to split hairs with the "it's anudder site tho!!" because that's no different than what TexasVet tried to entrap me with, and even on talk.loli - the very place they wanted me gone - sided with me.

https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=60f8946901b84

Your hubby needs to slap that attitude off your face.

So you posted the doxx. Good to know. I'm right about you, again.
My husband wouldn't hit me. But he would bitch slap the fuck out of you. Right after they let you out of ICU, cuz i get to beat yo ass, first.

Self doxxing isn't a dox, keep talking like a nigger it really helps solidify your point

You found a cuck, congratulations. He, nor you, could beat your way out of a wet paper bag. Just by your demeanor alone I can tell he's weak.

[shewhomustbeobeyed]

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Filthy fucking doxxer.

[antiliberalsociety]

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Filthy fucking doxxer.

Are you borderline defending that pedo just to be opposite of me? It's starting to look that way.

[MadWorld]

This was from the mchat earlier:

MadWorld • Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:26 pm
Set aside the retarded self-dox is still a dox, I think @SearchVoat is distinguishing the private info on searchvoat.co, and other sites, such as Voat.co and voat.xyz. So the self-dox on other sites cannot be shared on searchvoat.co domain. But then SVF also retains archives of Voat.co and voat.xyz. And according to that retarded definition, we would not be able to share search results on searchvoat.co domain.

sguevar • Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:28 pm
That was another thing I was thinking about. The link that exist between all three sites should supersede this stance he is taking to make it consistent.

I agree with @sguevar. The info regarding to self-dox of b4p on Voat.co and voat.xyz should be allowed to be shared on searchvoat.co domain. Please reconsider that a self-dox is permissible to be shared. This includes users who made themselves known for self promotions and whatnot. On Voat.co, users were allowed to self-promote their own sites, as long as a certain submission ratio was followed, to meet the non-spam guideline. By your definition, this would be a bannable violation of Rule 1, and any other user who shared this info would also be bannable.

[SearchVoat]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

[antiliberalsociety]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

If they weren't okay with being identified THEY WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THE SELF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE, WOULD THEY....

Schmuck.

[MadWorld]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

If they weren't okay with being identified THEY WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THE SELF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE, WOULD THEY....

Schmuck.

This feels like splitting hair . Even on gay ass site like poal, they acknowledge that users are responsible for their own self-dox.

[sguevar]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

This is a dumb stance. The reason why I say this is because B4A posted his information online himself. It wasn't done by a third-party, it was done by him alone. No one forced him, no one blackmailed him, no one influenced his actions. Him alone, under his own free will and probably out of pride that he wanted to prove someone wrong did so.

In his cockiness he kept saying "I know how to play the game" and so on and so forth. He basically shoot himself in the foot.

If you are asking whether or not the user should have an open window to reclaim privacy of his information not to be shared again on the site, well that would be like a dumb cunt out in the park approaching an interviewer recording the interview in a public place said that she no longer agrees with her face showing up in the video.

Unfortunately he has no expectation of that information being private again through these websites because they all share a link which is the archive. In addition, punishing users for the mistake that he did to himself, is not a valid stance.

The internet is unforgiven on that regard. All the user can do to reclaim some level of privacy with the information he shared, is making sure he makes his other social media private and not share. Request to Google that his picture is not shown anymore and so on and so forth. Nothing more.

The users that shared information that he himself shared before are not perpatrators of any crime nor offense.