May 30th, 2019 - Trump admits Russia helped him get elected.
An elected Republican called for biblical law to be implemented and for all non-christians to be murdered. But it's sharia law we should be scared about right?
Republicans ran an actual Nazi for office in 2018 and he got nearly 1/3rd of the votes.
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.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
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.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
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.
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.
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.
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.
Private company doing business as it wants = censorship now
Person with public information doing an interview = doxxing now
What is next I wonder?
Look at all the conservatives trying to play the victim card. Kinda funny.
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers
Ok. So he fucked up trying to remain anonymous and that obviously backfired. So, what? His mistake led to being doxxed.
- - - Updated - - -
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.
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.