Just linking to that story as one that wasn’t hyper-right-wing. At any rate, I think that is a bullshit move. It serves no purpose, as far as I can tell. If there was a win here, I’d consider it. But all it accomplished was making everyone feel less safe.
On a smaller note, I’m irritated as well by how all public information isn’t being thrown in the public’s face. We don’t want the existence of those lists and public info being hidden from public knowledge. We just don’t need gang leaders playing our their dramas online.
I’m not sure I get your objection…most political donations (edit: direct political donations) are public information? and there are very good reasons for that.
I suppose I could go macro and say I resent hearing about politicians name-dropping people in gun-murdery America.
It wasn’t strategic, it was dipping a toe in the swamp. It’s a signal that political discourse moves fast and breaks things.
The message is framed as, “look, these local business owners fund immigrant hate actions!” and that is hyperbole. I don’t know those people, and I can’t. All I see is a Congress member, someone whose constituents are compelled to pay attention to as their advocate, is starting shit with wealthy business owners.
But like, for what? Better wages? Equal pay? Better family support? Increased tax rates for biz? Did Bill Miller cater Phyllis Browning’s open house for a new detention center?
Strategic: work with a group tracking donations and voting with one’s wallet against hateful immigrant policies and actions. Or point out that is public information and folks should find out for themselves.
“I don’t financially support the Nazi Party for their policies of ethnic cleansing, I financially support them specifically and only for their policies of economic privatization!”
From the Vox article you posted:
“Increasing transparency for voters to see who is backing campaigns” is exactly why Castro posted those names. I kind of get why you’re allergic to this, and I even agree that there might be more strategic ways to go about accomplishing a similar aim. But seeing which wealthy people in your city are supporting the Nazi policies targeting people in your city is a good thing.
Those microposts were researched and mentioned user names. That doxing. Doxing is not a fine, surgical instrument of justice. Therefore, it should be off-limits.
I posit we don’t need to discuss any nuance, as the medium (140 character microposts) basically prohibits its usefulness.
Reposting publicly available campaign donation information != “doxing.” And Joaquin Castro’s post didn’t mention user names? If by that you mean Twitter user names. His tweet is still up, it’s embedded in the Vox article you linked and you can see it here
I’ll give you another example. It’s very useful to know that a candidate is getting maxed out donations from oil and gas executives, and it’s also useful to take a closer look at those specific (with names!) executives and find out who else they are supporting.
Saying “these local incredibly wealthy people are maxing out donations to an administration that is actively persecuting people in our city” is not “doxing.” It’s the exact reason political contributions are public.
Yes, I was referring to that. The two mentions are to what I presume to be corporate (meaning representing a business) accounts.
I’m stating that to clarify.
We disagree. That may be the crux of our overall disagreement. And honestly, it’s too traumatic for me to defend as an argument. Castro’s message made me feel fear. I’ll concede that my fear can be unfounded. But normally when I experience fear it is because someone has done something fundamentally wrong on many levels. They were partially enumerated in the article.
