What does that say about pure journalism? Publish information despite doing harm? How do you present the information, and what impact does that presentation have?

Historically, newspapers often published the full name and physical address of every person they covered, from judges to drunks to rape victims to people suspected of a crime. I'm sure people back in the day called that pure journalism, but I don't think we'd call it "good" today. Our standards today might also not be as good as we assume.

Username doesn't check out.

Good point, personally I had never considered that doxing could be considered not illegal/crime.

Speculating about it using arguments like "he also uses C++ and has used words popular in those circles" isn't though or at least shouldn't be.

"Hey this guy probably had an access to a few billion USD worth of btc, maybe still has, his name is X, he lives in Y. He wishes to be anonymous but he knows C++ and we got him!".

> I hate this idea that doxxing is some kind if crime.

The thing is, up until the advent of the internet it basically didn't matter - although in some cases, e.g. the German left-wing terror group "RAF", rich people did end up getting v&, in some cases killed. But that was a rarity.

But now with the possibilities of modern technology? Being able to be active on the Internet without hiding behind a pseudonym is a rare privilege. Wrong political opinion? Some nutjob from the opposite side can and will send anything from "pizza pranks" to outright SWAT to your home (or your parents, or ex-wife, or anyone they can identify as being associated with you). And if you got money? Stalkers, thieves, robbers, scammers, you will get targeted.