Viral Justice: The Moral Dilemma of Doxing

By Prof. Christy M K CHEUNG

From an American dentist who illegally hunted a lion in Africa to female video game developers targeted during Gamergate, many have faced harassment after their personal information was exposed online. Doxing—the act of publishing private details of an alleged wrongdoer with the purpose of inciting crowds to collectively harass them—has become a defining feature of the social media age, leading to job losses, identity theft, and physical threats. But if it's used to punish "wrongdoers," is it still wrong? A recent study[1] explores how doxers, caught between moral imperatives, find ways to justify their actions.

As life shifts online, the ease of sharing on social networks comes with a darker side: doxing. Personal data is increasingly weaponised, often over trivial disputes. Researchers found 5,500 doxing posts on Pastebin and 4chan over two 13-week periods in 2016-17, while in Hong Kong, authorities logged 5,800 complaints between June 2019 and June 2021. Industry experts and policymakers have slammed social media platforms for failing to curb doxing, fuelling calls for tighter regulations. But while oversight is tempting, the bigger question remains: Why do people dox, even when they know it’s wrong?

Applying insights from The Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action, which suggests that individuals make moral judgements before engaging in deviant behaviour, researchers believe two key factors influence doxing decisions: retributive proportionality—how we think others should be punished—and social approval—the sense of belonging and validation we get from the crowd. After conducting a series of experiments in China, researchers concluded that while doxing comes easily to many, it can still be contained.

It seems the more blameworthy we think someone is, the less we care about doxing’s consequences. But when the punishment seems disproportionate to the crime, we are less inclined to approve of doxing. Meanwhile, social approval is crucial—reinforcing doxing when the target is widely condemned but restraining our worst instincts when blameworthiness and severity don’t align. In the end, those who justify doxing are more likely to engage in it, and once we see it as acceptable, platform rules and warnings lose their impact. In a connected world, judgement isn’t just personal—it’s collective.

So what’s a social media owner to do? First, they should focus on reducing doxing’s moral approval. Since bans won’t work in a world of limitless identities, a better approach is to educate users on the harm doxing inflicts on victims, making it harder to self-justify. On the technical side, platforms should invest in automated detection and reminders—flagging personal information and warning users before they publish it. Clear anti-doxing policies, public awareness campaigns, and engaging content can all help reinforce boundaries and set clear expectations.

As for would-be doxers, they would do well to remember Solzhenitsyn’s words and think twice before clicking that button to expose someone they don’t even know: ‘The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?’

Reference:

[1]  Li, Y.-J., Cheung, C. M. K., Shen, X.-L., & Lee, M. K. O. (2024). Doxing on social networking sites: An extension of the social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(6), 1466–1499. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00898