On the off-chance that you're serious - doxxing someone who is suspected to be linked to a crime is staggeringly irresponsible, because you are then effectively convicting them in the court of public opinion. If they are innocent, but you have not only levelled accusations at them, but provided ways to access them, then you are partially responsible for what others choose to do with that information.

And by the way, even if the suspect is guilty, he/she might be a small cog in a much bigger engine, and by doxxing him/her the minds behind the fraud would be alerted then enter lowest profile mode, shutting everything down and making them extremely difficult to capture.

Doxxing can be a good thing only when authorities can't be trusted, which is the case for example of police violence and racism, where they're clearly protected by a corrupt system; in this case making their actions public becomes a public service. But in the above and other similar cases, think twice before publishing information that could undermine an investigation, even though they're properly checked and accurate.

Isn’t most crime journalism the same?

Three examples from the front page of the NY post right now.

I am having a hard time figuring out how to distinguish this and the OP doxxing. The organizationS fact-checking process? Solidness of the evidence?

> Allegations were made against longtime radio broadcaster Larry Michael (retired Wednesday), director of pro personnel Alex Santos (fired last week), assistant director of pro personnel Richard Mann II (fired last week), former COO Mitch Gershman (left in 2015) and former president of business operations Dennis Greene (left in 2018).

> Chanice Reyes, 24, was busted around 5 a.m. Thursday, sources said, when cops investigated a strong smell of marijuana coming from a car near City Hall, where anti-police activists have been gathering in recent weeks.

> Tory Lanez, whose real name is Daystar Peterson, was the person who allegedly shot Megan Thee Stallion following a dispute inside his vehicle Sunday morning, Page Six has learned.

There isn't a difference. Newspapers seem to dox people with impunity. It doesn't make it right, nor desirable, nor an excuse for others to follow suit.

The number of lives ruined by false allegations that have been amplified through press/journalists is disgusting.

It is in the United States. In other countries until conviction only initials are used. This to avoid ruining people's lives (or even endangering them) in case an allegation turns out not to be true.

We don't even do initials here for regular people. Usually it's some vague age and gender. Maybe ethnicity if relevant.

One difference is that these people are being accused by civil authorities --not some "rando" who moonlights as cyberpolice. He's not acting in an official capacity and doesn't have the imprimatur of the state.

I didn’t look closely but the first example I think is a non-state accusation. But interesting line to attempt to draw.

I look at the media as a counter to the power of the state. So I worry about an arrangement where media can’t name people without state approval. But perhaps my view is archaic?

I get what you're saying but the state here is often the official record for things. These kinds of government records are open and searchable in most cases. And to some extent they answer to the governed. You can get a new DA, mayor, etc. You can't fire an internet sleuth.

> Three examples from the front page of the NY post right now.

So does the NY Times, cf. the whole Slate Star Codex failure...

Because doxxing as a strategy has a nasty habit of ruining the lives of people that turn out to be innocent. Skipping legal process and all that.

> In this case?

After the Boston marathon bombing, Redditors thought they found one of the responsible terrorist. He wasn't.

Because the person he is doxxing isn't behind this. Unnamed telco source is not credible or is a rectangle swimming pools being used as a fingerprint.

> Because the person he is doxxing isn't behind this.

Don't think you can say that with certainty. It looks like a fairly solid series of deductions.

Maybe because the person he is pointing to may herself become a target of attacks/harassment other. If he (or she) is really the perpetrator, he should ideally be arrested and convicted. But it may also not be him.

I'm not sure I understand your comment actually.

Because... Because it's not confirmed?

Because it leads to harassment and harm. Which gets particularly bad when it's likely a false accusation at this point.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Tripathi for an example that should make your blood boil

Do you also support vigilante justice?