I'd say it's pretty reasonable to condemn two ways of exposing people to possible harassment and violence.

That's a way of saying journalists can't report on anyone. After all, it's easy to offend someone, somewhere. And they might harass as a result!

They can report on people using pseudonyms by referring to the pseudonym. This is done all the time when referring to tweets, etc. And, yes, people certainly exist who get offended and decide to harass/threaten others as a result. There's no real downside to making it harder for people to do so.

That's ridiculous. When reporters discover the people behind pseudonymous lobbying fronts, they don't report only the pseudonyms to protect the real identities involved. Why do participants in Internet culture get special dispensation? Isn't this just Reddit's weird norms leaking into the real world?

Or is it just the case that, as one friend said on Slack, "doxxing is when someone you don't like posts information about someone you do like"?

>When reporters discover the people behind pseudonymous lobbying fronts, they don't report only the pseudonyms to protect the real identities involved

Apples and oranges are different, yes. A private individual communicating independently is a much different thing than a lobbying front.

>Isn't this just Reddit's weird norms leaking into the real world?

It could be that online culture might know a thing or two about the downsides of exposing people's identities, especially when done by journalists with large audiences.

>Or is it just the case that, as one friend said on Slack, "doxxing is when someone you don't like posts information about someone you do like"?

Do some people have double standards about doxing? Sure. Double standards are pretty common in general.