After posting my original warnings about staying safe online I started to write a witty “Choose Your Own Adventure” game about internet privacy: no matter who you decided to trust, you ended up doxxed and/or v&. Subtle, huh? In the process of making this conceptual joke a reality I realized the potential humor was meager relative to the required busy-work. So let me just offer a direct plea for sanity instead.
Anyone who is continually, strongly encouraging violence or illegal actions is an agent provocateur. No exceptions. If he is encouraging you to break the law without saying so directly, through insinuation or other implicit modes of expression, he’s a Fed. Don’t trust him, because any information he gets about you is going straight into some seedy Stasi database. Seeing whether you can be pushed to agree to break a law without any explicit requests or encouragement is the main job of an undercover agent. That’s the primary reason LEAs work to infiltrate dissident groups: to find ways short of entrapment to encourage members to break laws, so they can be jailed. Now, any fellow dissident who encourages you to break a law explicitly is putting himself in grave danger, since incitement to commit a crime is itself a crime. Why would someone do something so risky? One extenuation would be if the provocateur knew he was in no danger of going to jail. When LEAs are instructed to create controlled opposition instead of simply entrapping as many dissidents as they can manage to frame, they take full advantage of the fact that undercover agents are never at any risk of punishment. The infiltrators are sent to join a dissident group; they seem to be able to devote more time and effort to the group’s agenda than any of its other members, without demanding any compensation in return (because the infiltrator’s real compensation is ZOGbux); they are willing to go deeper into any purity spiral and give riskier evidence of purity/radicalism than any other dissident (because they have full immunity); and hopefully, after this apparently counter-productive gambit, the infiltrator ends up as one of the most respected members of the group and can put all of his insider knowledge and influence at ZOG’s disposal. On the other hand, if a provocateur does explicitly incite illegal acts, but doesn’t ever seem to do much to help the movement he’s infiltrating, he probably is associated with an NGO. NGOs can attempt to enrage and radicalize dissidents and goad them into illegal actions using tactics that would count as entrapment if an LEA had used them, and then take their dossier of not-quite-entrapment to LEAs and have them take the next step.
So don’t trust violent people. Even if you yourself are not violent, not stupid, not a nog, not a criminal, and at no risk of being entrapped, those people almost certainly would like to make your life miserable and will give any information they get about you to people who want to make your life miserable.
If someone is over-the-top, cartoonishly extreme in his political rhetoric/emotions but never actually seems to be inciting anything, then can you trust him? No, of course not. If he talks in an extreme way because of his total commitment to his political principles, he may well be an honorable guy and level-headed guy, but he’s a perfect target for the kind of entrapment tactics I was just talking about. It is incredibly likely that someone in this position will be baited into doing something that gets him in legal trouble, and then anything he knows about you will probably end up in the confession. It’s inevitable that when LEAs are monitoring and persecuting dissidents that they’ll manage to nab some of them for something. Remember that Dick Spencer went to jail for organizing a dinner for nationalists. Weev went to jail, for years, for publishing URLs online. When they don’t like you, you need to keep your hands clean, and anyone who might have trouble with that should not have any of your personal information. — That goes double for cartoonishly-extreme guys who don’t actually seem to be devoted to their principles, but are just psychologically prone to histrionics for one reason or another. Whatever explains the histrionics, it makes them unreliable with your secrets. People who are asocial and unethical will commit non-political crimes for purely selfish reasons, and then
rat you out. Neurotics, who profess extremism as a sort of extended temper tantrum, will eventually decide they aren’t getting enough attention from our movement and convert to a rival group, at which point they will use anything they know about you to lash out. Narcissists and sociopaths whose every move is calculated for personal benefit aren’t loose cannons; you can trust them to only use your personal info to ruin your life in a deliberate, calculated way for your own personal benefit.
Anyone who isn’t extreme, on the other hand, isn’t trustworthy just because it’s so easy to fake a moderately-extreme dissident opinion, or even to mistake your own views for something more extreme than they really are. Giving private data to people with quasi-normie views is like randomly giving out copies of your house keys to all your neighbors; none of them look like thieves or serial killers, but it’s not as though they would be going out of their way to let you know if they were. And once you hand over the keys, it’s out of your hands.
You may think that people you’ve met online would never betray you because they’re your friends. Let me not to the bromance of true minds admit impediments, but try to think critically about this. How serious is this friendship? If it’s a casual camaraderie, you are almost certainly overestimating its stability while also projecting your loyalty onto a pseudonymous stranger. If you expect that he can’t turn on you because you have mutual internet friends, let me ask you to imagine a scenario in which drama within that clique is exactly the reason this “friend” gets mad-on-the-internet and lashes out at you by any means at his disposal. — If the friendship seems intense, too intense to possibly fade away… well, first of all, who makes intense friendship with strangers on the internet? You, of course, and you’re perfectly normal, but you’re the exception. The overwhelming majority of people who form intense friendships over the internet are people who are too mentally ill to make/keep friends in real life, and mentally ill people are not people you should trust with your info. Even when they mean well, they don’t do well; and sometimes they don’t mean well. This close friend of yours seems spontaneous and free-spirited now, but when he can doxx you completely he’ll seem like an erratic spaz. — And if by “intense” we mean internet-girlfriend, well, lasciate ogne speranza. I probably can’t talk you out of this ridiculous and tragic mistake, and if I can’t talk you out of the mistake I probably can’t convince you act as though it were a mistake, either. But perhaps I can ask you to look at other people with internet-relationships, and the depressing, grim endings of so many of those freakshows, and get you to accept that maybe other people’s internet girlfriends are a mistake, and other people shouldn’t be so careless with what information they give to qts on the interweb, and that to set a good example for these poor, unhappy other people you should act as though eventually your internet-girlfriend will turn on you in the most spectacular manner possible. Even though she won’t. Obviously.
Reflect on HBD. The whole point of HBD is that there is variation in biological traits. Even within a relatively homogenous population, any two people are likely to be quite different with respect to at least one trait. It may be unthinkable that anyone would pay a large enough bribe to get someone else to rat you out. But you probably are good at avoiding desperate situations; there are people out there who are dead broke and will do surprising things for $50. And you probably aren’t very vindictive; you can’t imagine paying very much to doxx someone you think is an asshole, but you’re average, and the asshole who is vindictive enough to pay to doxx is an outlier. It may be unthinkable that anyone would pore through the internet search results for every single American citizen with your name
until they’ve found data that matches what they know about you, but you’re probably not very obsessive; you’re probably gainful employed; you probably get bored with pointless, routine tasks easily. Even the thought of intentionally getting someone fired over a political disagreement may make you feel nauseous, sad, guilty; but you’re probably a person with a healthy sense of empathy, a respect for norms, and/or a good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon love of liberty. The person who doxxes you will not be as empathetic as you, as fair-minded as you, or as familiar with the works of J.S. Mill. Do not trust people simply because you like them and want to project your own traits onto them. Some people are genuinely similar to you, but the ones who lash out at you in ways you find absurd and inexplicable? You won’t find out how dissimilar they are until it’s already too late.