After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/libs-tiktok-x-chaya-raichik-bomb-threat-twitter-of-libsoftiktok-rcna102784

by heavyset_go • 2 years ago

31 59 2 years ago

johng• 2 years ago

Don’t they just repost what other people are already posting publicly?

logicprog8• 2 years ago

To a specific audience that they have cultivated, though. And almost universally with a highly specific framing. What they are doing is finding posts from queer children, teachers, or parents, adding a line that frames it as inherently pedophilic or something, and then posting it to their extremely large follower base of explicitly bigoted people that would not probably have been aware of the post otherwise. Those people are obviously going to get really angry at the people the original posts were from and a portion of them will do something about it, you're essentially vastly increasing the size of the audience that's aware of their posts and the proportion of that audience that is hostile. It's essentially the online equivalent of having a big mob behind you that's really angry about some group of people existing, and happening to see one of that group and pointing at them, and then the mob goes after them. Sure, that person was existing out in the open for anyone to see before you pointed at them, but you are explicitly directing a very specific group of people to be aware of them, within a very specific context and framing that wouldn't have been added to that person otherwise, and that has consequences. Additionally, they will often choose clips from things that are pulled completely out of context. Reposting content that was already online is not necessarily an inherently neutral behavior, because you are always reposting it to somewhere; in this case, taking a post from a person and boosting and broadcasting it to a huge group of people that hate that person.

richbell9• 2 years ago

What they are doing is finding posts from queer children, teachers, or parents, adding a line that frames it as inherently pedophilic or something

Can you provide some examples of this? "Pedophilic or something" is pretty open-ended.

logicprog8• 2 years ago

It's actually like well-known internet etiquette in many places that if you're going to share a post from a person you vehemently disagree with to a different Community or fan base or audience or whatever that also disagrees with them, that you block out their username and any other identifying info for precisely this reason, to prevent them from getting harassed. Chaya Raichik doesn't respect that.

tomcam2• 2 years ago

That's a lot of words. They repost without editing material submitted to the most popular social media sites in the world. The original posters are literally getting wider exposure: exactly what they wanted.

RajT882• 2 years ago

This is increasingly the far-right playbook. Get a big audience all worked up about something via a steady stream of lies and outrage, and then pretend like you had nothing to do with it when one of your followers does something illegal.

We have such groups around me which have resulted in vandalism of businesses and multiple bomb threats sent to multiple libraries. These assholes for a while were monopolizing the citizen comments section of city council meetings at any city which was allowing any kind of drag show or drag themed event (think drag queen story hour) in town.

The notable case of vandalism was a coffee shop not only with broken windows, but they also keep finding feces in corners of the place.

sp332• 2 years ago

To be more pointed than logicprog, Raichik just lies a lot. Example from the article: Libs of TikTok’s post said it happened “in front of children.” Anthony said no children were present.

clarada• 2 years ago

Interesting that you immediately just assumed it's Raichik lying rather than Anthony, who is a politician after all.

bequanna• 2 years ago

That is simply “he said, she said”.

One person is lying, but we don’t know which.

richbell9• 2 years ago

I looked this up. Raichik's tweet links to a blog post. The first paragraph ends with "And kids were reportedly present."

Further down, there are pictures of the event with the caption:

Feel free to take a look at other photos from the drag show fundraiser, where at least one child is pictured.

Based on this, I don't think it's a slam-dunk case of her lying. It's possible that a child was present at some point but not for the spanking.

Uinchuling2• 2 years ago

It should be noted that this refers to a mayor being spanked by a drag queen at a public event.

To many, myself included, the absence of children does not erase the absurdity and degeneracy of this stunt. It's still unacceptable. If children were present, it ought to have been criminal.

sarcasmatwork2• 2 years ago

Yes, they repost the content from others. That's it.

082349872349872• 2 years ago

hayleyest• 2 years ago

She has 2.8 million followers. There were 2.4 million Nazi volunteers. The scale of what is possible has changed. It's not an inn with 28 farmers. It's not a statehouse with 280 citizens. It's not a gathering around a microphone of 2800 people. It's not a stadium of 28,000. It's not a gigantic congregation of 280,000. It's 2.8 million that listen to her every time she posts. Night or day. Around the clock. She's Always In Their Heads. Both axis of this graph have changed. Any law based around some mid 1900's pre-internet context of how people gathered and how the police might keep an eye on it, are bunk. Pure and utter bunk. In 2.8 million people there will be someone who will act. And as the article states, many times they get away with it. She's inciting hate crimes. That we won't do anything about it is insane. She sits on a buffer of "well, it wasn't me". Crime bosses do that too. Why do we allow it? It seems insane that any civil society would allow that.

bruceb4• 2 years ago

What kind of censorship do you propose?

locopati• 2 years ago

see also Stochastic Terrorisn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

jessfyi• 2 years ago

Not surprised this was flagged despite a civil discussion and how relevant it is to this late stage limbo social networks currently occupy. To be frank, it runs counter to the narrative that the dedicated cohort of "free speech" absolutists here whom don't want an example of why there absolutely need to be limits to what can be posted and disseminated.

Simulacra• 2 years ago

I think people should have the absolute right to free speech so long as it doesn't harm another person, but in the same token, with free-speech, comes the ability for others to amplify that speech. Good, bad, agreeable, or not.

Censorship is too easy for others to use as a club against persons they disagree with. Let the sunlight of public scrutiny be the judge.

After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

Related Stories