Title : WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous.
link : WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous.
WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous.
Last Thursday, the woman behind the account appeared anonymously on Tucker Carlson’s show to complain about being temporarily suspended for violating Twitter’s community guidelines. Fox News often creates news packages around the content that Libs of TikTok has surfaced....
[T]he identity of the operator of Libs of TikTok is traceable through a complex online history and reveals someone who has been plugged into right-wing discourse for two years and is now helping to drive it....
A woman at the address listed to [this] name in Los Angeles declined to identify herself. On Monday night, a tweet from Glenn Greenwald confirmed the house that was visited belonged to [her] family....
I guess Lorenz (and WaPo) think this doxxing is acceptable — and good journalism — because the person is opposed to the left and giving visibility to its TikTok videos that might otherwise escape notice. There's this implicit justification for doxxing:
The popularity of Libs of TikTok comes at a time when far-right communities across the Internet have begun doxing school officials and calling for their execution.
Some people on the right dox, so we — a prominent and elite newspaper — can dox a particular individual who isn't accused of doxxing anyone but is popular with people on the right. Libs of TikTok has been especially effective in showing teachers who are proud of teaching children about gender and sexuality. Is it nefarious to show their videos to people who think this teaching agenda is wrong? WaPo seems to be saying: Yes. But if the answer is yes, that means this teaching agenda can't stand the light!
Here's what I see as an attempt to wriggle out of that implicit admission that these sex-and-gender lessons must not be dragged out into the sunlight:
Members of the LGBTQ+ community who still attempt to use platforms like TikTok to educate people on gay or trans issues are subject to intense online abuse, causing a chilling effect.
“[Libs of TikTok] is playing on fears and misunderstandings of who trans people are, while amping up extreme rhetoric and normalizing portraying queer people as inherently dangerous to children,” [said Gillian Branstetter, a media strategist for the ACLU]. “It’s hard to stoke moral panic without main characters, and the role Libs of TikTok is playing is finding those characters.”
The more offensive the teaching is, the more the teachers will be abused if their work is exposed. Libs of TikTok is only drawing attention to material that has been posted on TikTok. So what is the standard for doxxing? I'd like to see WaPo state the answer to that question explicitly. Are they saying that those who highlight vile speech deserve to be stripped of their pseudonymity? Or are they saying — say it clearly, WaPo! — that when speech WaPo likes is exposed to people who don't like that speech, it becomes acceptable to dox whoever exposed that speech?
Notice that WaPo poses as concerned about chilling the speech of the original TikTokker, but it is actively chilling the speech of those who draw attention to that speech. The original TikTokker chose to make something public, Libs of TikTok then shared that public speech, and WaPo publicized what had not been public, the identity of the pseudonymous sharer.
I challenge WaPo to explain its ethics in viewpoint neutral terms. I'm not saying there's much chance that its ethics are viewpoint neutral. I just want to see it take the problem seriously and either try to demonstrate the neutrality of its ethics or, alternatively, defend its non-neutrality forthrightly. I'd like to know the rule that it purports to follow, because I want to be able to use it in the future.
***
AND: Maybe WaPo envies Glenn's 1.8 million followers and "online influencer" is a bigger deal to them than "journalsit." Taylor Lorenz has less than 300,000 followers. Also:Could the WashPost be any pettier or more jealous? If you feel inadequate about what you've accomplished journalistically, working harder to break meaningful stories is a better solution than trying to malign those who have. Again, this jealousy is why they want Assange punished. pic.twitter.com/tfIwUm0hQo
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 19, 2022
Hi @TaylorLorenz! Which of my relatives did you enjoy harassing the most at their homes yesterday? pic.twitter.com/QehkBSgcmG
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
Taylor Lorenz says online harassment is a huge problem because it’s a tool to silence people especially women. The irony pic.twitter.com/Rgxb6odlgd
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
This was Taylor Lorenz a few weeks ago. Never forget pic.twitter.com/jFpusBTmfy
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
Last Thursday, the woman behind the account appeared anonymously on Tucker Carlson’s show to complain about being temporarily suspended for violating Twitter’s community guidelines. Fox News often creates news packages around the content that Libs of TikTok has surfaced....
[T]he identity of the operator of Libs of TikTok is traceable through a complex online history and reveals someone who has been plugged into right-wing discourse for two years and is now helping to drive it....
A woman at the address listed to [this] name in Los Angeles declined to identify herself. On Monday night, a tweet from Glenn Greenwald confirmed the house that was visited belonged to [her] family....
I guess Lorenz (and WaPo) think this doxxing is acceptable — and good journalism — because the person is opposed to the left and giving visibility to its TikTok videos that might otherwise escape notice. There's this implicit justification for doxxing:
The popularity of Libs of TikTok comes at a time when far-right communities across the Internet have begun doxing school officials and calling for their execution.
Some people on the right dox, so we — a prominent and elite newspaper — can dox a particular individual who isn't accused of doxxing anyone but is popular with people on the right. Libs of TikTok has been especially effective in showing teachers who are proud of teaching children about gender and sexuality. Is it nefarious to show their videos to people who think this teaching agenda is wrong? WaPo seems to be saying: Yes. But if the answer is yes, that means this teaching agenda can't stand the light!
Here's what I see as an attempt to wriggle out of that implicit admission that these sex-and-gender lessons must not be dragged out into the sunlight:
Members of the LGBTQ+ community who still attempt to use platforms like TikTok to educate people on gay or trans issues are subject to intense online abuse, causing a chilling effect.
“[Libs of TikTok] is playing on fears and misunderstandings of who trans people are, while amping up extreme rhetoric and normalizing portraying queer people as inherently dangerous to children,” [said Gillian Branstetter, a media strategist for the ACLU]. “It’s hard to stoke moral panic without main characters, and the role Libs of TikTok is playing is finding those characters.”
The more offensive the teaching is, the more the teachers will be abused if their work is exposed. Libs of TikTok is only drawing attention to material that has been posted on TikTok. So what is the standard for doxxing? I'd like to see WaPo state the answer to that question explicitly. Are they saying that those who highlight vile speech deserve to be stripped of their pseudonymity? Or are they saying — say it clearly, WaPo! — that when speech WaPo likes is exposed to people who don't like that speech, it becomes acceptable to dox whoever exposed that speech?
Notice that WaPo poses as concerned about chilling the speech of the original TikTokker, but it is actively chilling the speech of those who draw attention to that speech. The original TikTokker chose to make something public, Libs of TikTok then shared that public speech, and WaPo publicized what had not been public, the identity of the pseudonymous sharer.
I challenge WaPo to explain its ethics in viewpoint neutral terms. I'm not saying there's much chance that its ethics are viewpoint neutral. I just want to see it take the problem seriously and either try to demonstrate the neutrality of its ethics or, alternatively, defend its non-neutrality forthrightly. I'd like to know the rule that it purports to follow, because I want to be able to use it in the future.
***
AND: Maybe WaPo envies Glenn's 1.8 million followers and "online influencer" is a bigger deal to them than "journalsit." Taylor Lorenz has less than 300,000 followers. Also:Could the WashPost be any pettier or more jealous? If you feel inadequate about what you've accomplished journalistically, working harder to break meaningful stories is a better solution than trying to malign those who have. Again, this jealousy is why they want Assange punished. pic.twitter.com/tfIwUm0hQo
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 19, 2022
Hi @TaylorLorenz! Which of my relatives did you enjoy harassing the most at their homes yesterday? pic.twitter.com/QehkBSgcmG
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
Taylor Lorenz says online harassment is a huge problem because it’s a tool to silence people especially women. The irony pic.twitter.com/Rgxb6odlgd
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
This was Taylor Lorenz a few weeks ago. Never forget pic.twitter.com/jFpusBTmfy
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 19, 2022
Thus articles WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous.
You now read the article WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/04/wapo-goes-after-twitter-feed-libs-of.html
0 Response to "WaPo goes after the Twitter feed "Libs of TikTok" — tracing and revealing the name of someone who had been anonymous."
Post a Comment