>No buddy. Doxing is not identifying that you dated the same person, it's almost exclusively providing their address.
I don't think there is a universal definition of it, and even if there was this is toxic behavior. People on dating websites have a higher expectation of privacy than people on the Internet in general. I'm pretty sure you could be banned from a dating website for having participated in one of these groups, if only the victims would know about it. Especially if you were to switch the genders.
>Basically, if it's newsworthy it is protected as long as you're not inciting violence or publishing highly personal information that isn't relevant like their exact address.
It might be protected but it is certainly nastier content than things that ARE actively moderated on Facebook, which is my entire point. These groups are private because the information in them is so toxic, that nobody in them wants to stand by it. You could argue that some people might share legitimate concerns about "safety" of dating a specific person, but the same kind of concerns (if substantiated or plausible) could get the accused banned from the dating website or something.
>The only reason anyone should hyperfocus on this issue is if you're someone with a very dark past and you're afraid it will catch up with you, or perhaps a nice person who is just too paranoid.
There are many reasons to be concerned about this. There's the general privacy issue (even private things like "this guy has a lot of money" are private and can cause a lot of damage, perhaps leading to a robbery). Secondly, some people are petty, vengeful, and willing to lie. I've known several people like that. The fact is that if one of these people puts on a persona of credibility, they can cause a lot of trouble for you, not least of which is that other people won't date you.
>In reality, false allegations of rape are incredibly rare and even then a rape allegation is not actually going to exclude you from that whole pool of potential relationships. A lot of the people in those groups have bad reputations. Leaving multiple reports on ex's makes you look undiscerning and people do pay attention to these things.
The content in these groups is far more petty than that. The content shared about you could be stuff like, what kind of job you said you had, how you reacted to her telling you that she was promiscuous to some extent, the size and proportions of your genitalia, details about your family or past relationships, etc., all of which can be made up to make you sound very undesirable.
>There are two sides to every story and a lot of people want to hear both sides. I don't always agree with this outlook. But the reality is one bad review on a "are we dating the same guy" thread is not deathknell you seem to believe it is.
The reality is that one bad review can destroy your dating life, especially if these groups are allowed to flourish. Dating is so hard for a lot of people that if even one person is turned off by a bad review, that essentially ruins their whole love life. I hate to make it gender-specific but most attractive women have literally hundreds of choices in men, and even a slight doubt about a guy who is not absolutely stunning will rule him out.
>I mean if those attacks are based in fact then.... I dk what you're saying. You think we should censor everyone so they can't say anything negative ever?
I'm saying that it is hypocrisy to allow extreme toxicity in these groups but not very mildly "problematic" content elsewhere. If the goal of moderation is to reduce toxicity and potentially illegal content, then allowing this at all means they've failed. If you were the victim of one of these attacks you'd never know it, unless a member of one of those groups told you.
>If your best friend hits you up in DMs and tells you the girl you just went out on a date beat him, are you gonna call the cops on him?
That example is not comparable at all. If anyone beats up another person, the victim has legal recourse if they want it. People have been successfully convicted of assault for even spitting on another person. Guys have been convicted of rape with no witnesses or physical evidence at all (although this is thankfully rare). False rape reports carry weight, and they are not as uncommon as you think.
If you want a comparable example, it would be something like a group of guys creating a Facebook group to share photos, names, and identifying information about women they dated along with details about their experiences, including a hot/crazy scale rating and a bedroom rating. They could also report such things as cup size and which psychoactive medications the women are taking. Now further imagine that the group was restricted to men only. How far do you think that would fly? Should it be allowed on Facebook, where your whole family and friend circle can easily access it? Is that less toxic than Jesus memes and obviously AI deepfake memes of political figures?
Another similar idea would be for delivery drivers to start a group sharing how much people tip, how many people were seen living in each person's house, and offering up details to confirm who placed the order. It is technically within their free speech rights to talk about where they drove all day and what they saw, right? They can even take pictures of all your cars and license plates from the street and share those too. So you could certainly imagine members of that group refusing to deliver to your house because you left a bad tip one time. Hell, the other day a delivery driver stabbed a pregnant woman to death because she only gave a $2 tip (I think more was offered as well, and she didn't have change!).
It would be hard to classify these groups as a form of harassment, but that's probably the closest thing you could call it. It might be legal but it certainly isn't pleasant, and being pleasant is one of the apparent goals of the platform. Conveying accurate information is also a goal of the platform. But the only people who are likely to defend those being smeared are the victims, who are banned from the groups. Courts have upheld that platforms like Facebook can censor people, for better or worse. Censoring this type of privacy-violating, toxic content would be one of the better cases.
