7 ms·

> with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety This would cover LibsOfTikTok, but not ElonJet

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
You mean Taylor Lorenz who doxxed LibsOfTikTok?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  No, they mean libs of tiktok's posting. Neither Lorenz nor Sweeney has a document an intented to cause fear. LoTT does.
  - hajile 4y ago
    LoTT re-uploads video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing. In what way can that be considered doxxing? If they published personal information the person didn't want put in the public eye, that would be a very different story.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      If we're to believe that information that is technically public can be "doxxing" if not widespread, then if I post about a party at my house, and then you share that post with lots of people who want to hurt me, that's doxxing and a violation of that law. > LoTT re-uploads video content This is not at all what LoTT does. That's what the LoTT TikTok did, but it was banned on TikTok. Current things that LoTT twitter account is posting about are: - Yoel Roth - A drag queen event at the white house - A number of videos and images of drag queens that were not posted by the performer - Taylor Lorenz - etc. And was repeatedly suspended from twitter for (incorrectly) claiming a hospital were doing hysterectomies on kids, resulting in bomb threats at said hospital, and then doing it again. "re-uploading content users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing" is a misrepresentation of the account.
      - hajile 4y ago
        You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy by any definition as is someone who accepted a very public invitation to the White House. Taylor Lorenz doxxed LoTT (not even debatable here with the article even being edited to remove some of the doxxed links). Speaking about this and the public journalist who did it to you certainly seems appropriate. As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. > Over the 3-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified: 177 chest/top and 27 genital/bottom surgeries (Table 1). Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions 177/204 (86.8%) with 65/177 (36.7%) of those patients being less than 18 years of age. > The Center for Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. In the four years since its inception, CfGS has completed over 300 gender-affirming surgeries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm...
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        > You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy Whether or not they are newsworthy or appropriate, information about Roth and Lorenz clearly isn't "video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing". If you want to change your argument, feel free, but don't accuse me of misrepresentation and then lie. Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't. > As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. No I was not. A hysterectomy is not a chest surgery, and the hospital doesn't provide them to children (https://archive.vn/7R44e https://archive.vn/7R44e). The hospital may provide some services to children, but hysterectomies aren't one of them. Again, do not misrepresent my comments.
    - ilyt 4y ago
      Apparently, according to California
  - scythe 4y ago
    Neither Lorenz nor LibsOfTikTok would admit they intended to cause fear. But posting someone's contact details is not normal nor does it serve a serious public interest. Sweeney isn't on the same level at all. He's tracking jets. Airports are full of security. The last time Internet posts led to an attack on an airplane was never, unless we're counting al-Qaeda's private message infrastructure.
    - asteroidbelt 4y ago
      You don’t have to attack a jet in the airport. You can attack a car on the only road from the airport for example if you know exactly when and where to attack. (Also, not all the airports have good security, smaller airports don’t.)
      - neuronexmachina 4y ago
        > You can attack a car on the only road from the airport for example if you know exactly when and where to attack. Was this the case with the stalker? From what I can tell the airplane landed the day before, and I haven't seen any evidence that the incident occurred near the airport.
perryizgr8 4y ago
How so?

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

You mean Taylor Lorenz who doxxed LibsOfTikTok?

joshuamorton 4y ago
No, they mean libs of tiktok's posting. Neither Lorenz nor Sweeney has a document an intented to cause fear. LoTT does.
- hajile 4y ago
  LoTT re-uploads video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing. In what way can that be considered doxxing? If they published personal information the person didn't want put in the public eye, that would be a very different story.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    If we're to believe that information that is technically public can be "doxxing" if not widespread, then if I post about a party at my house, and then you share that post with lots of people who want to hurt me, that's doxxing and a violation of that law. > LoTT re-uploads video content This is not at all what LoTT does. That's what the LoTT TikTok did, but it was banned on TikTok. Current things that LoTT twitter account is posting about are: - Yoel Roth - A drag queen event at the white house - A number of videos and images of drag queens that were not posted by the performer - Taylor Lorenz - etc. And was repeatedly suspended from twitter for (incorrectly) claiming a hospital were doing hysterectomies on kids, resulting in bomb threats at said hospital, and then doing it again. "re-uploading content users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing" is a misrepresentation of the account.
    - hajile 4y ago
      You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy by any definition as is someone who accepted a very public invitation to the White House. Taylor Lorenz doxxed LoTT (not even debatable here with the article even being edited to remove some of the doxxed links). Speaking about this and the public journalist who did it to you certainly seems appropriate. As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. > Over the 3-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified: 177 chest/top and 27 genital/bottom surgeries (Table 1). Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions 177/204 (86.8%) with 65/177 (36.7%) of those patients being less than 18 years of age. > The Center for Gender Surgery (CfGS) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) was the first pediatric center in the United States to offer gender-affirming chest surgeries for individuals over 15 years old and genital surgeries for those over 17 years of age. In the four years since its inception, CfGS has completed over 300 gender-affirming surgeries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm-11-01943.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9000168/pdf/jcm...
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        > You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy Whether or not they are newsworthy or appropriate, information about Roth and Lorenz clearly isn't "video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing". If you want to change your argument, feel free, but don't accuse me of misrepresentation and then lie. Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't. > As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. No I was not. A hysterectomy is not a chest surgery, and the hospital doesn't provide them to children (https://archive.vn/7R44e https://archive.vn/7R44e). The hospital may provide some services to children, but hysterectomies aren't one of them. Again, do not misrepresent my comments.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Apparently, according to California
- scythe 4y ago
  Neither Lorenz nor LibsOfTikTok would admit they intended to cause fear. But posting someone's contact details is not normal nor does it serve a serious public interest. Sweeney isn't on the same level at all. He's tracking jets. Airports are full of security. The last time Internet posts led to an attack on an airplane was never, unless we're counting al-Qaeda's private message infrastructure.
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    You don’t have to attack a jet in the airport. You can attack a car on the only road from the airport for example if you know exactly when and where to attack. (Also, not all the airports have good security, smaller airports don’t.)
    - neuronexmachina 4y ago
      > You can attack a car on the only road from the airport for example if you know exactly when and where to attack. Was this the case with the stalker? From what I can tell the airplane landed the day before, and I haven't seen any evidence that the incident occurred near the airport.

perryizgr8 4y ago

How so?