- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
After the last post publicly by Naomi Wu being
“Ok for those of you that haven’t figured it out I got my wings clipped and they weren’t gentle about it- so there’s not going to be much posting on social media anymore and only on very specific subjects. I can leave but Kaidi can’t so we’re just going to follow the new rules and that’s that. Nothing personal if I don’t like and reply like I used to. I’ll be focusing on the store and the occasional video. Thanks for understanding, it was fun while it lasted”
Naomi Wu mentions briefly on her silencing and how she is not nearly as safe as she was before now that it’s obvious to the Chinese government her disappearance won’t cause an uproar of bad press making China look bad.
Honestly it doesn’t feel too far to me, and I generally detest doxxing as a tactic.
We trust and depend on journalists to expose and spread the truth and tell the stories people should see, but it’s never supposed to be at the expense or exploitation of vulnerable people. It’s one thing to expose the personal details of say, a hypocritical politician, but putting an individual’s life at risk just to spice up a story seems to violate most journalistic ethics I’m familiar with.
That’s why I say arguably… I don’t support doxxing, but this was an eye-for-an-eye situation as they must have known the damage they could potentially cause.
Her response was unable to do nearly as much damage as the article. The stakes were much lower for the vice editor and her platform had much lower reach.