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

[johng]

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

[logicprog]

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.

[sp332]

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.

[sarcasmatwork]

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

[082349872349872]

see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Subsequent...

[hayleyest]

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.

[locopati]

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

[jessfyi]

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]

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.