I wish I could care about this, but the 'doxx' and lulz and generally childish writing make me assume this is another case of internet entitlement issues.
I'm not sure which you take issue with. Do you think:
-she has no right to privacy?
-she deserves to be harassed?
-she deserves fraudulent copyright claims against her?
-or do you simply think the use of words not in your vocabulary makes her opinion irrelevant?
Doxxing is a concise term that describes a real phenomenon and it happens to be quite old in internet terms.
I would expect some informal language in a transcript to a youtube video. However, after reviewing the entire transcript again, I don't see much informal writing at all. I have no idea what you're referring to with "lulz" and I'm still looking for this "childish writing."
Generally I find myself in the "pro-harrasee" camp. But honestly not this time. Obviously she does have the right to expect Google not to reveal her private information. And they don't. And any harrassment being done (as I read it, there is none actually alleged) must stop.
But at the same time: she doesn't have an inherent right to have youtube host her videos either. Using the free service means she has to abide by their rules, one of which is the (in this case, abusable) copyright counterclaim process. She doesn't have to give the claimants her info just like Google doesn't have to host her data. Stick it on Vimeo, or put it up in an S3 bucket.
And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.
>And as an aside: I have to admit I had no clue what "doxxing" was either and had to look it up. I'll straight up admit that kind of jargon turned me off. Trying to communicate to the broader community using language specifci to your little enclave is just poor persuasion tactics.
Same here, but I'm thinking the "little enclave" is youtube. Several hundred videos have discussed doxing/doxxing in the past year, so it may be assumed to be common knowledge there among the more active vloggers. She makes youtube videos and she seems to be appealing solely to a youtube audience since it's a youtube specific issue (again, this is just a transcript).
I'm agreeing with you on most everything else. I don't particularly care for her legal approach here, but I don't think what she said should be ignored because of novel word usage either.
It wasn't the novel word usage, it was the writing style in general. I can generally recognize what reasoned, researched, well-thought-out arguments look like.
Usually they do not include whole paragraphs in capital letters, or multiple instances of words in caps for emotional affect. Perhaps less telling but still strange was the reference to a user 'ZOMGitscriss' - this, combined with the repeated 'doxx' usage, lends me to believe the writer has about the intellectual level of a script kiddie on irc, which I am extremely familiar with due to spending years wasting my life with people who say things like "oh dongues. i been doxxd by a fed. ZOMG"
Reading the whole article after I left my comment, and reading HN's subsequent comments, it became clear this was some kind of off the cuff rant about the consequences of the DMCA-related censors built into youtube, and a misunderstanding of their policy. In other words, I was right.
Regardless of your personal feelings for this woman, do you agree that this is an exploit that youtube exposes where attackers may be able to get personal information about a youtube account holder?
Regardless of what the (obscure) legal reality is in this matter, do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way, and shows a general lack of understanding of the real-world procedures (as opposed to how keyboard warriors imagine things are or should be) in matters like this, and an apparent unwillingness to learn about them, to a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it, and certainly ill-suited to be the flag bearer for a contentious topic like this one?
do you agree that this woman presents her case in a juvenile way
No, I don't agree. Anger at harassment and injustice isn't juvenile. Use of jargon familiar to her audience isn't juvenile either. Although I can see why others would see it that way.
apparent unwillingness to learn about them
I do agree this seems apparent.
To a point where it makes her seem unsuitable to voice an informed opinion about it
The people who filed the request are obviously trolling in order to:
1) Get the videos removed.
2) Potentially get real-life identifying information in order to enact a campaign of harassment. I would hate for GWW to be harassed. She is a breath of fresh air.
The DMCA is fine when the complaints are legit. This penalizes both YouTube and the content creator.
Wouldn't that still greatly narrow down the possibilities of where the person is in real life? At least it would narrow it down to the area they live/work in.
There are lawyers who take on cases like these just on principle (assuming the facts are as described). They would usually want to get co-council who is licensed in your jurisdiction, but if it really comes down to it they might accept being primary on the claim.
It's funny that you phrase it that way. I didn't know the author was a woman (does it matter?).
As others have noted, this form doesn't need your personal information, so no I don't agree that this is an "exploit". You never have to give your personal information.
The situation reminds me of people who make anti-Scientology videos and then cry about freedom of speech when the cult's legal juggernaut descends. Is it fair to get a DMCA or lawsuit threat just because someone disagrees with your content? No (assuming you did not violate copyright protection laws). But getting bit by a shark because you're wading in its pool isn't fair either - just inevitable.
