[1] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/145817/who-owns-...
I've always understood doxing to be PII, which aliases aren't, AFAIK, unless they're connected to a real person. And, to my knowledge, everyone is contending that the names in the blog post are all aliases. And, regarding aliases, I've never understood it to be doxing for someone to say "FakeNameX and FakeNameY appear to be the same user."
So, to me, the thing that makes it not look like doxing is that it simply doesn't meet the basic definition of doxing. It provides no PII.
"Dox" is short for "documents", and it originally referred to compiling a multi-page document of all known personal information, using disparate public sources: name, address, phone, email, employer, family members, family address/phone etc, etc, etc. It came from troll boards and was designed to make it easy to harass targets.
The term got significantly watered down when it got out to the broader internet.
https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-...
Even a half-assed attempt at doxing is still an attempt at doxing.
It'd be much easier to accept that you're acting in good faith had you deleted the post when it became obvious that the target doesn't appreciate it.
You could still do that, and it would very simply be the right thing to do.
I encourage everyone to read the original article and make their own conclusion. Do not take this poster at their word.
I would say the opposite... The DDoS is pretty obviously ridiculous, completely unacceptable, and entirely indefensible, while the blog post seems like whatever.
I honestly cannot fathom defending using your popular website as a tool to DDoS someone you have personal beef with, without the consent of the DDoSing participants.
Just the fact alone that they modified archived pages has completely ruined their credibility, and over what? A blog post about them that (a) wasn't even an attack, it is mostly praising archive.today, and (b) doesn't reveal any true identities or information that isn't already easily accessible.
From my perspective at least, archive.today seems like the unhinged one, not Patokallio.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
Under „Altering of archived pages“
The weird part to me is that some people are seemingly trying to downplay a popular website abusing visitors to DDoS someone.
How does your information (two angles) change anything at all about that fact? Normally if any website was caught abusing visitors to DDoS another website there would be no debate about why this is a bad thing. What about your other angles was supposed to matter in deciding if this was a bad thing for a website to do?
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Feeling wronged by someone doesn’t give you freedom to abuse every visitor to your website to DDoS someone else.
Why even do that, then? Why not just make a public post of theirs like: "Hey, here's someone trying to doxx me, and here's the unfair and fictitious bullshit the lying government is trying to pin on me. Here's all the facts, decide for yourselves."
Why do something as childish as DDoSing someone which takes away any basic good will and decency/respect you might have had in the eyes of many?
That way, it'd also be way more clear whether attempts at censorship are motivated by them acting as a bad actor, or some sort of repression and censorship thing.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but it sounds like lashing out to one own's detriment.
In this case, question is recursive. I have no idea who Jani Patokallio or gyrovague.com are, and the way Jason Drury shifts from “tried to dox” to “doxx’d” makes me wonder if this is astroturfing by Jani or Jason or a 3rd party. Who knows!