what an ignorant take. Social media promotion of "hated" groups can be plausibly blamed for mass murder, including a literal genocide for which Facebook is now being sued for £150bn right now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...

That's completely different. Libs of TikTok only reposts very far-left takes to expose their absurdity.

They provide commentary too. They certainly have an agenda. They have targeted specific people and organizations, and also groups of people generally. The article writer needed an example of a well-known social media account that fit this description, and accounts that are worse in terms of explicitly encouraging harassment have already been banned.

Their only "agenda" is "exposing" and making fun of far-left excesses by simply reposting them. I don't think they have targeted anyone in particular. If the things they repost are damning, they were damning in themselves.

I expect a full retraction and apology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36700969

I responded to this but my comments got flagged/censored. Great, everyone.

Still expecting the full retraction and apology on LoTT, along with an additional apology for responding to me pointing out that saying "non-binary isn't real" is hateful by saying that it's a legitimate opinion, and also the irrelevant point that "[t]he view that there are only two sexes is completely mainstream in biology".

I don't know what LoTT means. Regarding "non-binary isn't real" that can well refer to sex, which would make it true according to the cited biologist piece. And even "gender", man/woman, he/she, can be legitimately interpreted to refer to sex. In fact, it seems that this is a very common usage of those terms. In no case is this disagreement to be roundly dismissed under the accusation of "hate speech".

> I don't think they have targeted anyone in particular.

Then maybe research before commenting? They do this regularly.

> If the things they repost are damning, they were damning in themselves.

The whole context of the account is to "damn" the things they are posting. Sure, if you pick one of their posts at random it'll probably be something that 99% of people agree is wacky, but come on. They have inflammatory commentary, they target specific people, organizations, and groups, they know they influence politics and society and are proud of it. If you need me to, I can spend the time to prove all that, but it's all to say that yes, they are a good example of a social media account to use in OP's article.

The OP article makes it sound as if they are immorally harassing people, not what they are actually doing, at least mainly: exposing things which are damning in themselves.

An analogy: They raise awareness about far-left excesses in a similar way in which the media likes to raise awareness about far-right excesses.

What is it that right wing people like to point out about how they interpret section 230?

Choosing what to post is editorializing.

I left-wing people gleefully repost damning far-right opinions shared by Trump fans, the situation is the same. It has nothing to do with left/right in particular.

left-wing people are not stalking and murdering [1] people they saw on tiktok (because they are not fascists)

[1] https://www.advocate.com/crime/libs-of-tiktok-allen-shooter

Some people think they are above everyone else and that others should not be able to scorn their behaviour.

You're the only one making the absurd terrorist analogy. Reposting a person's content in another context with a whole crowd of people specifically there to mock and humiliate that person, many of whom will then go out of their way to personally harass that person, definitely counts as "targeting."

More than harassment, literal bomb threats https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...

> After Raichik falsely claimed on Aug. 11 that Boston Children’s Hospital performs hysterectomies on children, the hospital received a barrage of “hostile internet activity, phone calls, and harassing emails including threats of violence toward our clinicians and staff,” the hospital said in a statement. The hospital does provide hysterectomies to certain patients over 18.

> On Tuesday, police responded to an anonymous bomb threat at the hospital. No explosives were discovered, and hospital officials said they were cooperating with the police investigation of the incident. “We remain vigilant in our efforts to battle the spread of false information about the hospital and our caregivers,” the hospital said.

When the account "just reposted stuff" with inflammatory claims about children's hospitals, those hospitals were targeted by a deluge of online harassment and phoned-in threats. [1] If Twitter is the public square, then their account is on a massive soap box with over two million followers. What they say is going to have real-world consequences, and to pretend as if they have no blame is ridiculous.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...

There were actual cases of hospitals who freely admitted to performing (illegal) gender treatment on minors and hastily changed their websites as they were exposed.

going to call bullshit on that. Share the source of so called "illegal gender treatment". Going to guess it was a hospital that had to quickly change practices due to one of those reactionary laws recently passed in Texas or similar at best. These laws violate people's human rights and should be overturned (and they will be).

Great, so we agree that Libs of TikTok "just reposting stuff" is done to achieve political goals, with success, that would not have happened without the huge spotlight they control. So when they post hateful content targeted at trans people, they have reason to be afraid.

> Great, so we agree that Libs of TikTok "just reposting stuff" is done to achieve political goals, with success, that otherwise would not have happened.

Yes? It is perfectly legitimate to "expose" things. Nothing else happened a few years ago when people reposted absurd takes of the most dedicated Trump supporters.

> So when they post hateful content targeted at trans people

What are you talking about? What has exposing things to do with that?

I don't know why you're responding to me then. The post I'm replying to is pretending that "just reposting stuff" is totally harmless and has no real world consequences.

Here's a couple of excerpts highlighting way many LGBTQ+ people see Libs of TikTok as a threat

"After gaining a large Twitter following in the spring as she baselessly accused LGBTQ teachers of being pedophiles and “groomers,” Raichik began criticizing children’s health facilities earlier this summer, targeting a hospital in Omaha in June and another in Pittsburgh in August. The attacks resulted in a flood of online harassment and phoned-in threats at both hospitals."

(From "Twitter account Libs of TikTok blamed for harassment of children’s hospitals" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...)

...

"One former English teacher, Tyler Wrynn, told Lorenz for her piece that he had been harassed, sent death threats and eventually fired after one of his TikToks about supporting LGBT+ kids was posted by Raichik"

(From "How Libs of TikTok Became an Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Machine" https://www.them.us/story/libs-of-tik-tok-twitter-facebook-i... )

"While the account doesn’t always explicitly encourage followers to do anything, its posts have sometimes led people to harass or physically threaten its subjects. In one instance, a group of five Proud Boys members disrupted a Drag Queen Story Hour at a public library, spewing homophobic and transphobic insults at attendees, which investigators believe was spurred by Libs of TikTok."

(from "Teacher targeted by Libs of TikTok sent death threats and lost his job" https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/04/20/libs-of-tiktok-teache... )

I’m starting to think there are lots of assholes using gender and gender isms as excuse to themselves consistently labeled assholes. Like there are people getting feet dragged by gender dysphoria, and there are people who’s got nothing else to shift their blame to than maybe their biological identities that catches onto it.

What assholes? How do they do it? Be as specific as you can.

Bullshit, complete lies. Is this recent example just "repost[ing] stuff on twitter"?

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1678538540399861760

Or this post saying "non-binary isn't real", is it just "repost[ing]"? If you say what she said in any decent workplace, you will be fired for very good reason.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1677331796730470408

Retract and apologize, now.

First, these are completely legitimate opinions which have nothing to do with hate speech. Second, last time I checked they still mainly reposted things. Third, the fact that you think that people should be fired because of their private beliefs which have nothing to do with their job is alarming. Imagine you would be fired for one of your opinions on sex/gender/pronouns etc even though this has nothing to do with your job.

You don't get to say "non-binary isn't real" in a workplace when some of your colleagues are or could be non-binary. That is absolutely a hateful, illegitimate opinion.

The Colorado State University image is basic manners when it comes to trans people. It is part of diversity training at any decent workplace, and there is no legitimate reason to object to it.

The view that there are only two sexes is completely mainstream in biology:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-biologist-explains-why-sex-is...

> That is absolutely a hateful, illegitimate opinion.

An opinion can be true or false. That it is allegedly motivated by hate is a baseless accusation. It can be claimed about anything. "Don't believe God exist? Must be hate speech! Punish him." This all happened before.

>Retract and apologize, now.

What are you going to do, bully?

Just convince other people about the falsehood of the opinion.