Daily Beast doxxed the guy who made the fake Pelosi video

[Worvon]

Ya bud, you may wanna pay attention to the right-ist reaches of this internet before casting this particular stone.

Also, pretty sure this post is textbook projection. The right is FARFAR more guilty of everything you said than the left.

You are the bad guys. Stop trying to dodge that fact.

Trying to reason with a reich winger is a waste. If you could reason with them or they had critical thinking, they wouldn't be members of the reich to begin with.

[Bodakane]

There's a part of me that believes that when videos and photos are altered to misrepresent the facts, they shouldn't be done so anonymously.

[Endus]

That’s part of the funny... he commented on how dumb Rudy was for falling for his ‘female admin’ scam. The article states that he blamed his ‘female admin’ for the video edit. I don’t see them doxxing this female admin, who pretty obviously doesn’t exist.

Let's go to the OP's article, shall we?

Over the course of an hour-and-a-half interview, Brooks insisted repeatedly that he wasn’t the one who posted the Pelosi clip on Politics WatchDog. He claimed he’s just one of half-a-dozen administrators who jointly control the page and its content. It was one of the others, he said, who debuted the doctored video. “It was a female admin who posted it.”

He declined to identify the “female admin” or any of his other supposed colleagues. And a Facebook official told The Daily Beast that they simply don’t exist.


According to the official, there were indeed six other accounts registered alongside Brooks as page administrators, but the company determined last week that all six of them were controlled by Brooks. Facebook deleted those accounts under its real-name policy, the Facebook official said.

Not only did the female admin not exist, the account exists, and Facebook was able to confirm that all those admin accounts were actually Brooks himself.

It's not just an "it wasn't me", he'd created a fictional scapegoat and tried to establish it as a real person, pro-actively, in preparation for something like this.

[Felya]

It's not just an "it wasn't me", he'd created a fictional scapegoat and tried to establish it as a real person, pro-actively, in preparation for something like this.

I’m pretty sure he insisted that the author of the video was female, as a reaction to Hillary calling it sexist.

[Razzako]

None of it was private. It was public Info and Info given during interview. Please do tell what private info was given.
Details please.

So let me get this straight, some guys found out who was behind the video because of data left in a URL and a twitter username, then the real identity of said person is found, then his public information is openly shown, including a past address, real name, state he lives in, and what not, but that's not doxxing.

Please, tell me how that's not doxing? Let me help you out so that you can read better this time:

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

[Machismo]

So let me get this straight, some guys found out who was behind the video because of data left in a URL and a twitter username, then the real identity of said person is found, then his public information is openly shown, including a past address, real name, state he lives in, and what not, but that's not doxxing.

Please, tell me how that's not doxing? Let me help you out so that you can read better this time:

The guy literally gave an interview.

Not. Doxxing.

[Edge-]

So let me get this straight, some guys found out who was behind the video because of data left in a URL and a twitter username, then the real identity of said person is found, then his public information is openly shown, including a past address, real name, state he lives in, and what not, but that's not doxxing.

Please, tell me how that's not doxing? Let me help you out so that you can read better this time:

In this article? https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-fou...k-pelosi-video

His real name was public information, it was shared from his account from what I can tell.
His location "Bronx" was similarly on his social media accounts from what I know.
They didn't include his home address or phone number.
His criminal history is information that can be publicly requested.
I see no information about a specific past address, either.

He walked into the public space when he decided to start posting the video publicly and sharing it. It's no different than if he was a drunk guy on the corner shouting on a soapbox and local media tracked down his general, publicly available information in an article about his ranting.

[Razzako]

In this article? https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-fou...k-pelosi-video

His real name was public information, it was shared from his account from what I can tell.
His location "Bronx" was similarly on his social media accounts from what I know.
They didn't include his home address or phone number.
His criminal history is information that can be publicly requested.
I see no information about a specific past address, either.

He walked into the public space when he decided to start posting the video publicly and sharing it. It's no different than if he was a drunk guy on the corner shouting on a soapbox and local media tracked down his general, publicly available information in an article about his ranting.

The point is that identifying information has been released on the internet. If identifying information about the drunk guy shouting on a soapbox (lol) got released, it'd still be doxxing.

[Machismo]

The point is that identifying information has been released on the internet. If identifying information about the drunk guy shouting on a soapbox (lol) got released, it'd still be doxxing.

Great, that's freedom of speech at work.

[Edge-]

The point is that identifying information has been released on the internet.

Yes...and? By creating and sharing something that hit national news he became a figure of public interest. Want to remain an anonymous shitposter on the internet? Don't use personal accounts with your real name and information on them to shitpost.

If identifying information about the drunk guy shouting on a soapbox (lol) got released, it'd still be doxxing.

It wouldn't be, and it's not. There was no malicious intent. This man became a figure of public interest. This is the CNN gif thing all over again, and that was a gigantic, humongous nothingberder.

[Lynarii]

The point is that identifying information has been released on the internet. If identifying information about the drunk guy shouting on a soapbox (lol) got released, it'd still be doxxing.

The point is that all the identifying information that was released on the internet is information that he himself put there. This is all public information to begin with, nothing private was released without his consent.

Not doxxing.

[Endus]

The point is that identifying information has been released on the internet. If identifying information about the drunk guy shouting on a soapbox (lol) got released, it'd still be doxxing.

If that's "doxxing", then every time a news anchor is introduced by their network, they've been "doxxed". Every time a political figure is referenced, they've been "doxxed". Every time someone is interviewed by any journalist, anywhere, they've been "doxxed".

You've rendered the term completely meaningless, if this is the ridiculous standard you want to apply.

[Moralgy]

Private company doing business as it wants = censorship now
Person with public information doing an interview = doxxing now

What is next I wonder?

[Zaydin]

Look at all the conservatives trying to play the victim card. Kinda funny.

[Edge-]

Look at all the conservatives trying to play the victim card. Kinda funny.

It's the CNN gif all over again.

[Zaydin]

It's the CNN gif all over again.

I mean, from all accounts, the guys info was always public and it's hardly doxxing if he agreed to an interview without asking to have his identity be kept anonymous.

[Razzako]

The point is that all the identifying information that was released on the internet is information that he himself put there. This is all public information to begin with, nothing private was released without his consent.

Not doxxing.

Except that depends on whatever terms that website has. After all, the connection between the video and the information was made by some account name included in an URL.

[Wyrt]

How do you doxx a guy who runs a "news operation" by his own words and outs himself?

You can't so this wasn't Doxxing, it's just people crying.

[Razzako]

Yes...and? By creating and sharing something that hit national news he became a figure of public interest. Want to remain an anonymous shitposter on the internet? Don't use personal accounts with your real name and information on them to shitpost.



It wouldn't be, and it's not. There was no malicious intent. This man became a figure of public interest. This is the CNN gif thing all over again, and that was a gigantic, humongous nothingberder.

Ok. So he fucked up trying to remain anonymous and that obviously backfired. So, what? His mistake led to being doxxed.

- - - Updated - - -

If that's "doxxing", then every time a news anchor is introduced by their network, they've been "doxxed". Every time a political figure is referenced, they've been "doxxed". Every time someone is interviewed by any journalist, anywhere, they've been "doxxed".

You've rendered the term completely meaningless, if this is the ridiculous standard you want to apply.

Except not really, because every time a news anchor releases public information about someone is because they got it sourced from the authorities or whatever source that is actually allowed to release it.

News anchors can be hit hard by a lawsuit if they fuck up with privacy too.

[Malaky]

Says the guy who expects others to provide evidence for his points

I'm not the one he was arguing with, brainy.
I'm a casual observer from the sides who can still see and calls out bs. Try again.

I've seen far more people call him out for said bs than "respecting his ""evidence""", which always comes in the form of ad hominems and personal attacks.