This looks more and more like a coordinated campaign. A basic search reveals a huge amount of recent articles that clearly aim to sic people on Cloud Flare[3][4][5][etc].

By amazing coincidence all these articles got published within one week of each other and within one week of Cloudflare dropping the website? Sure.

[1] https://unherd.com/thepost/why-taylor-lorenz-can-dox-whoever...

[2] https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/ny-times-reporter-taylor-loren...

[3] https://thenewstack.io/cloudflares-kiwi-farms-support-may-so...

[4] https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-cloudflare-pres...

[5] https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/protocol-enterprise/clo...

This analogy is interesting because it also applies to Keffals.

Do you really think that doxxing and harassing schoolteachers is the same as doxxing someone who goads others into suicide?

So we've just gone mask off to "doxxing is good when we do it."

If you can understand the distinction above, you should be able to understand the difference with Taylor Lorenz vs Libs of Tiktok. Unless you're operating in bad faith or just trying to be a contrarian in which case, more power to you.

Yes, if we're talking about actual physical assault and not mere criticism. Are you actually arguing that Lorenz prevented imminent acts of physical violence through her doxxing? Because this doesn't pass the laugh test unless you're relying on the usual vague "stocastic terrorism" arguments that are used to justify censoring pretty much any culturally conservative speech.

Releasing who she is was fine.

If a Ku Klux clan member had a very popular anonymous YouTube channel making fun of black people and bragging about it on Tucker Carlson, is it journalism to investigate and share where they work and who they are?

The fact that you assumed I was talking about targeting conservatives just goes to show that they happen to be the ones rocking the boat with violent rhetoric, which occasionally gets backed up by actions.

This is just shifting the partisan question-begging to the notion of "bad actions/bad actors." Why not just embrace the "doxxing is good when we do it" point that I originally made?

Yes.

> vague "stocastic terrorism" arguments that are used to justify censoring pretty much any culturally conservative speech.

The arguments aren't vague when mass killers have mentioned right-wing talking heads in their manifestos and suicide notes. Maybe conservatives (people of all political affiliations actually) should watch what they say instead of crying when they face consequences for their speech, no?

  > minding their own business

First sentence of the definition on Wikipedia. What do you believe retaliation means in this context? If your consequence is a rebuttal or criticism, I have said nothing. Otherwise you are just wrong.

Very telling that you find more value in the hate speech than in the value of the victims ability to protect themselves. Especially when both are equally as much free speech.