Great question! Initially, I was 100% against doxxing because it turns into vigilante justice when people gang up on a suspect that hasn’t been properly tried in a court, so innocent people could become victims for something they didn’t do or pay excessive consequences. However, with your question, I think it points out some nuance.

In the case of the Jan 6 insurrectionists, the FBI was trying to find them to press charges, so I think it was appropriate to doxx them. Protesters that didn’t partake directly in the insurrection were also outed and I’m iffy on that one. Their presence still had an impact on the insurrection because it gave energy to the thing and possible increased intimidation. Imagine if there was 1 person outside your house with a guillotine vs 100 people with a guillotine. The latter would likely instill more fear.

Ultimately, I think the main issue is not with being doxxed, but with the vigilante justice that people like to enact when someone is doxxed. Rather than say firing this dentist, the people that had the power to do so could have just accepted that the dentist had his own opinion on the matter irrelevant to his employment and left it at that. Yet, they acted on the desire to punish him by firing him. I think that’s messed up because for all we know, he might have had a valid reason for that behavior or at the very least, it was not affecting his work. I think it’s normal to be frustrated with the situation and have emotional responses to it. Rather than punish and isolate him, they could have had a compassionate talk with him to hear him out and possibly come to a collaborative stance to help ameliorate the situation. After all, conflicts aren’t resolved by increasing antagonism. It’s resolved by engaging in understanding and healthy interdependence. If anything, all they did was further radicalize the dentist.

This concludes my TED Talk.