Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

I mean, the ideal amount of nuance is to not ban this in the first place"; right now we're talking about damage control for particularly critical subsets of uses.

> Universities typically own housing as well.

I'd expect that argument to carry negative weight with the folks trying to do this, given the hate they have for universities in general, and the love of privatization.

View on HN

> critical subsets of uses

I don't consider rich people trying to hide their identity to be "critical" at all. Maybe having their address public will be a way to force them to act with consideration of the community instead of just themselves for once while they hide in some anonymous mansion.

> rich people

What part of "people at risk of doxing" made you jump to "rich people" rather than, for instance, "people in groups commonly attacked"?

> force them to act with consideration of the community

By doing what, precisely? "Have you tried not being (commonly attacked group here)?"

Only rich people can afford houses in the US, ergo.

~65% of the US is rich?

Keyword was "afford" not own. The average person can not afford to purchase a home (without having to uproot their entire life).

Some numbers and definitions would go a long way here

Rich people aren't the only ones that want to hide their address. Stalking/DV victims can use this too, or even just a regular person that prefers privacy.

So basically you're subtly encouraging violence and intimidation, and want that to be easier than trying to find someone's "anonymous mansion."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com