Should journalists be doxxing people?

Herdfan

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Posts
5,383
There is a current spat going on right now between the lady who runs the Libs of TikTok and WaPo reporter Taylor Lorenz.

nypost.com

Washington Post backs Taylor Lorenz over 'Libs of TikTok' 'doxxing'

The Washington Post came out in support of its internet culture beat reporter Taylor Lorenz after she came under fire on social media for allegedly “doxxing” the woman behind the contro…
nypost.com nypost.com

Seems Lorenz hates this page although not really sure why. I mean if you are going to post on TikTok, isn't being seen by as many people as possible the goal?

Anyway, she looked up the page's owner and has showed up at family member's homes, harassed her and now people with a similar name are being harassed.

Should a reporter for a major news organization being doing this?
 
The New York Post is a grade C- publication that is mostly not as dubious as NewsMax, but only just. I might trust their reporting on a basic news story, but if there is any kind of controversial content, no.
 
While I think journalistic integrity is important, I don’t have much sympathy for an account whose goals include getting pressure applied to LBGTQ folks in places like schools to get them fired, and helping feed the grooming hysteria. If you want to know the journalist’s beef, it’s not like she didn’t write a whole article outlining her issues in detail, with receipts. Sometimes going to the source is a good way to understand what someone’s thinking, especially when it’s out there for everyone to read.

There’s been reports of the impact on real folks targeted by this account, and it’s clear this account is there to stoke outrage at ”the left”, and to get some folks fired for daring to be openly LGBTQ. The account‘s own posts back that up by saying that any teacher that comes out as gay or trans to students should be fired on the spot.

And if you place your real name on the WHOIS for your domain that you run the account under, is that really “doxxing” at that point, or just looking you up in the phone book as part of investigative journalism? Generally when we refer to “doxxing”, we talk about exposing someone’s identity that they have anonymized for the sake of protecting themselves. In this case, what would they be protecting themselves from other than blowback from their own actions?

EDIT: And why not add another take on the thing.
 
Nycturne said:
And if you place your real name on the WHOIS for your domain that you run the account under, is that really “doxxing” at that point
Click to expand...
WHOIS is onea those obscure internet features that most normal muggletypes are not even aware of, and it is possible that the record was put there automatically by the hosting service, without Raichik knowing or possibly even able to suppress it (being, apparently, a full-on muggle). I mean, next thing you know, the fiendish journohackers will be spying on us by looking at our secret html source!
 
Herdfan said:
Should a reporter for a major news organization being doing this?
Click to expand...

It doesn't specify what she did. Doxxing usually refers to publishing someone's personal information online. Is that what she actually did? It looked like she tried to find a way to interview whoever was behind that account. The NYPost is careful not to provide any actual information as usual. They really like their rage bait.
 
Nycturne said:
While I think journalistic integrity is important, I don’t have much sympathy for an account whose goals include getting pressure applied to LBGTQ folks in places like schools to get them fired, and helping feed the grooming hysteria. If you want to know the journalist’s beef, it’s not like she didn’t write a whole article outlining her issues in detail, with receipts. Sometimes going to the source is a good way to understand what someone’s thinking, especially when it’s out there for everyone to read.

There’s been reports of the impact on real folks targeted by this account, and it’s clear this account is there to stoke outrage at ”the left”, and to get some folks fired for daring to be openly LGBTQ. The account‘s own posts back that up by saying that any teacher that comes out as gay or trans to students should be fired on the spot.

And if you place your real name on the WHOIS for your domain that you run the account under, is that really “doxxing” at that point, or just looking you up in the phone book as part of investigative journalism? Generally when we refer to “doxxing”, we talk about exposing someone’s identity that they have anonymized for the sake of protecting themselves. In this case, what would they be protecting themselves from other than blowback from their own actions?

EDIT: And why not add another take on the thing.
Click to expand...

All the owner of the page does is aggregate TikTok's that people make. Those people put them out there for anyone to see. All she does is place them somewhere anyone who wants can see them. If you are worried that what you post on TikTok can get you fired, why in the hell are you posting it?

She did publish Chaya Raichik's address and her business license. And showed up at her relatives homes.

LibsofTikTok is registered by a Proxy Company, so no whois searches will find the owner.
 
thekev said:
It doesn't specify what she did. Doxxing usually refers to publishing someone's personal information online. Is that what she actually did? It looked like she tried to find a way to interview whoever was behind that account. The NYPost is careful not to provide any actual information as usual. They really like their rage bait.
Click to expand...

Posted her name, business license and business address.
 
Herdfan said:
All the owner of the page does is aggregate TikTok's that people make.
Click to expand...
It appears that that is not "all she is doing". She is posting malicious accusations targeting individuals as "groomers" (not actually a thing) and "pedophiles (sans evidence). In other words, the account has been chasing notoriety (and probably profit) by frothing up the Qish with false accusations (which have caused some of the subjects unwarranted problems).

So, the bright line here is that the owner of the account was in fact seeking attention and acted all disturbed when she received it. Mama told me I could play with face-eating leopards and they wouldn't eat my face. Waaaaah.
 
The 6th amendment guarantees one the right to confront witnesses when being accused of something… in a court of law.

While this situation is not a court of law, the notion of fairness is foundational to America. If somebody accuses you of something, you should be able to respond. When Ms. Raichik was hiding behind a shield of anonymity, the people accused of terrible things by her were unable to face their accuser.

Raichik boasts that several teachers have been fired as a result of being featured on the account.
Click to expand...
“These people,” she said, referring to members of LGBTQ+ community, “some of them are literally evil and grooming kids, they should not be in schools, they should not be teachers.”
Click to expand...

And until Raichik was exposed, these teachers didn’t know who was responsible for the accusations, which in some cases caused loss of livelihood. It is good she’s exposed now. Perhaps the fact that they were accused by a Jan 6 riot supporter will help these teachers get their jobs and livelihoods back.
 
Last edited:
Raichik boasts that several teachers have been fired as a result of being featured on the account.
Click to expand...

They weren't fired by being featured on the account. They might have been discovered, but they were fired by what they posted on TikTok. Again, if you post something that can get you fired, it is your fault if you get fired.
 
Herdfan said:
They weren't fired by being featured on the account. They might have been discovered, but they were fired by what they posted on TikTok. Again, if you post something that can get you fired, it is your fault if you get fired.
Click to expand...
If you commit a crime, you should be put away. But you also have the right to face your accuser. Which you don’t seem to support. So just flush the 6th amendment down the toilet as long as you’re “owning the libs” right?

Oh, and BTW - this woman edited what they posted and framed it without context. Keep that in mind.
 
Back
Top