April 20, 2022

USA: The Washington Post LIES—Claims They Did Not Publish Details About Libs of Tik Tok's Personal Life. BUT There Is Proof They Did.

LibsOfTikTok was merely exposing the psychopaths that were hired to teach pre-school and kindergarden children. These teachers were fired because they posted public videos on TikTok describing how they were sexually grooming the children in their care. My mom is gay and after showing her the LibsOfTiktok videos, she said she wouldn't want me around these people as a child. She would have reported these teachers to the school too. I was born into and raised in the gay community. Both my mom and dad are gay since before I was born. I was mainly raised by my mom, while visiting my dad often. I was very protected by my mom and her friends which were my extended family. The gay community knew if anything happened to me, they would have to answer to my mom. Just because we're gay doesn't mean we don't have standards. LGBTQ people are not a homogenous group. If I had children, I too wouldn't want to have them exposed to these psycho people. The public TikTok videos these teachers posted would be disturbing to any reasonable person. (emphasis mine)
The Post Millennial
written by Libby Emmons
Tuesday April 19, 2022

After Taylor Lorenz doxed Libs of Tik Tok in the pages of the Washington Post, that paper released a statement defending the doxing, and defending Lorenz's journalistic standards.

They also lied, claiming that Lorenz had not published the home address of the Libs of Tik Tok account holder, when in fact, she had. The article was later scrubbed to purge those details, but they were there when the article was published at 6 am on Tuesday.

They wrote that Lorenz, who cried on MSNBC after getting mean tweets and then blasted MSNBC for interviewing her at all since it led to even more mean tweets, "is an accomplished journalist."

Senior Managing Editor Cameron Barr said that Lorenz's practice of using Antifa-affiliated accounts to gain information, and showing up at the homes of Libs of Tik Tok's family members, were "reporting methods" that "comport entirely with The Washington Post's professional standards."
"Chaya Raichik," Barr writes, giving the name of the Libs of Tik Tok account holder who had chosen anonymity until Lorenz published her name, and address, in the Washington Post, "in her management of the Libs of Tik Tok Twitter account and in media interviews, has had significant impact on public discourse and her identity had become public knowledge on social media. We did not publish or link to any details about her personal life."
That was an outright lie. The details were there in the first publishing of the article.
The Washington Post defended its exposure of Libs of Tik Tok, as did Lorenz, despite Lorenz having complained about being harassed online, claiming that even one personal detail was enough to get her death threats. And the Washington Post simply lied.

The Spectator's Amber Athey reached out to the Washington Post to find out what they think constitutes doxxing, if it isn't publishing a person's business address and license number. And also why, if they didn't think that was doxing, they removed the link.
Doxing (sometimes written as Doxxing) is the act of revealing identifying information about someone online, such as their real name, home address, workplace, phone, financial, and other personal information. That information is then circulated to the public — without the victim's permission.

While the practice of revealing personal information without one’s consent predates the internet, the term (term?) doxing first emerged in the world of online hackers in the 1990s, where anonymity was considered sacred. Feuds between rival hackers would sometimes lead to someone deciding to "drop docs" on somebody else, who had previously only been known as a username or alias. "Docs" became "dox" and eventually became a verb by itself (i.e., without the prefix "drop").

The definition of doxing has expanded beyond the hacker world community and now refers to personal information exposure. While the term is still used to describe the unmasking of anonymous users, that aspect has become less relevant today when most of us are using our real names in social media.

Recently, doxing has become a tool in the culture wars, with rival hackers doxing those who hold opposing views the opposite side. Doxers aim to escalate their conflict with targets from online to the real world, by revealing information which includes:
  • Home addresses
  • Workplace details
  • Personal phone numbers
  • Social security numbers
  • Bank account or credit card information
  • Private correspondence
  • Criminal history Personal photos
Embarrassing personal details Doxing attacks can range from the relatively trivial, such as fake email sign-ups or pizza deliveries, to the far more dangerous ones, like harassing a person's family or employer, identity theft, threats, or other forms of cyberbullying, or even in-person harassment.

Celebrities, politicians, and journalists are amongst those who have been doxed, making them suffer from online mobs, fearing for their safety, and – in extreme cases – death threats. The practice has also spread to prominent company executives; for example, when Proctor; Gamble's Gillette released its, We Believe ad, which claimed to target toxic masculinity, Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard's LinkedIn profile was shared on 4chan — with the poster calling others to send angry messages to him.

Doxing entered mainstream awareness in December 2011, when hacktivist group Anonymous exposed 7,000 law enforcement members' detailed information in response to investigations into hacking activities. Since then, Anonymous has doxed hundreds of alleged KKK members, and their most recent targets have included Q-Anon supporters.

The motivations behind doxing vary. People feel they have been attacked or insulted by their target and could be seeking revenge as a result. If someone becomes known for their controversial opinions, they could target someone with opposing viewpoints. However, this tends to be the case when the topic is especially polarized, rather than everyday political disagreements.

Intentionally revealing personal information online usually comes with the intention to punish, intimidate, or humiliate the victim in question. That said, doxers can also see their actions as a way to right perceived wrongs, bring someone to justice in the public eye, or reveal an agenda that has previously not been publicly disclosed.

Regardless of the motivation, the core purpose of doxing is to violate privacy, and it can put people in an uncomfortable situation — sometimes with dire consequences.

Running a WHOIS search on a domain name

Anyone who owns a domain name has their information stored in a registry that is often publicly available via a WHOIS search. Suppose the person who bought the domain name did not obscure their private information at the purchase time. In that case, personally identifying information (such as their name, address, phone number, business, and email address) is available online for anyone to find.

Is doxing illegal? (check your state stalking and cyberbulling laws)
Is doxxing illegal in California? YES, Doxxing is illegal in California. The state has laws against cyberbullying not only for adults but also for children. Violating these laws can either lead to a fine or jail. [source: Review42]
[THERE'S MORE (I added these two legal explanations to doxing definition I shared.)]
In California, stalking laws make it illegal for one to follow, harass, and threaten another person. If the defendant causes the alleged victim to reasonably fear for his or her safety, then the defendant is in violation of the California Penal Code 646.9(a).

Defining Stalking in California

In order to have a conviction under Penal Code §646.9(a), the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

-The defendant willfully and maliciously harassed or willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed the alleged victim; AND,
-The defendant made a credible threat with the intention of placing the alleged victim in reasonable fear for his or her safety and/or for the safety of his or her family [source: HerLawyer]
Doxing can ruin lives, as it can expose targeted individuals and their families to both online and real-world harassment. But is it illegal?

The answer is usually no: doxing tends not to be illegal, if the information exposed lies within the public domain, and it was obtained using legal methods. That said, depending on your jurisdiction, doxing may fall foul of laws designed to fight stalking, harassment, and threats.

WOW. 😬

This transgender person says in this video that "when a baby is born the doctor looks at them and makes a guess whether the baby is a boy or a girl." I would not want my child being taught this nonsense. These people are divorced from reality. They are trying to impose their made up version of reality on society. Sadly, the public school system is most likely deliberately recruiting these people specifically to push this obscene agenda on America's most vulnerable and most easily influenced. Their goal is to convert every child to transgenderism which would be any easy segue to transhumanism. (emphasis mine)

UPDATE 4/20/22 at 2:22pm: Added info below.
Dave Shadow published STAR TREK - BORG QUEEN meets Data.

FROM ME: The Borg is what the psycho globalist cabal wants for this world. Remember the psychos at the World Economic Forum Dr. Klaus Schwab and Dr. Yuval Noah Harari. Both are "professors". Well, they and their circle refer to us humans as useless meat eaters who have no value. We humans disgust them. They openly admit they want to replace humans with the Borg with a hive mind. They are pushing society towards "transhumanism". Yuval Noah Harari sounds like the Borg Queen. Look up his interviews and public speeches to see what I mean. Dr. Harari thinks he is perfect and we humans are filth from the sewer that need to be eradicated from the earth. He thinks tyrants like Hitler didn't do a good enough job exterminating enough humans. I typed a transcript of a a snipit from this Star Trek scene @ 2:18 minutes that sums up perfectly what the pscho globalist cabal who want to genocide the human race:

Borg Queen: I bring order to chaos.
Data: Interesting cryptic response.
Borg Queen: You are in chaos Data. You are the contradiction. A machine who wishes to be human.
Data: Since you seem to know so much about me, you must be aware that I'm programmed to evolve, to better myself.
Borg Queen: We too are on a quest to better ourselves, evolving toward a state of perfection. 
Data: Forgive me, the Borg do not evolve. They conquer.
Borg Queen: By assimilating other beings into our collective we are bringing them closer to perfection.
Data: Somehow I question your motives.
Borg Queen: That is because you haven't been properly stimulated yet.
Borg Queen: Do you always talk this much?
Data: Not always. But often.
Borg Queen: Why do you insist on using this primitive linguistic communication. Your android brain is capable of so much more.
Data: Have you forgotten I'm endeavoring to become more human?
Borg Queen: Human. We used to be exactly like them. Flawed. Weak. Organic. But we evolved to include the synthetic. Now we use both to obtain perfection. Your goal should be the same as ours.
Data: Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a dilusional mind. 👈 SUMS IT UP.
Borg Queen: Small words. From a small being trying to attack what it doesn't understand. 👈 EXACTLY WHAT THE PSYCHO GLOBALIST CABAL WOULD SAY.
Data: I understand that you have no real interest in me. 

using a They/Them pronoun would indicate to any reasonable person to be described to have a "multiple personality disorder" which is now called "disassociative identity disorder". (emphasis mine)

No comments: