Sydney Towles - Tik Toker with cancer being trolled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am menopausal and I have breast cancer and I hate SM.

However, if this young person needs to have a SM account and post stuff, I have no problem. I also don't have a problem if she is faking cancer. Her followers or demographics are not influencing my own journey and treatment.

So, whatever gets her through whatever she is undergoing is fine by me. I choose not to watch her.

Sorry, correction. If she is peddling some misinformation about cancer and treatment options, I will have a huge problem. But, if she is just living her life and making videos in her bikini, I don't have a problem.

If she is chugging down beer while undergoing chemo...i will have a huge problem.

If she has a face mask on while getting a bikini wax..I don't care. If her trolls point that she should not need to get her pubes waxed because she will lose ALL HAIR EVERYWHERE because of chemo...I don't care.

Did you read the article? She’s going to memorial Sloan Kettering.

No, I did not read the article. My position is that it does not matter as long as she is not giving misinformation about cancer and treatment options. She should be not criticized for a)being on social media, b)trying to earn a buck from social media and c) living her life with/without cancer. Sheesh - people are free not to follow her. We have zero idea of what she is going through, how she is coping, what she is feeling. If it is of no interest then people should mind their own business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am menopausal and I have breast cancer and I hate SM.

However, if this young person needs to have a SM account and post stuff, I have no problem. I also don't have a problem if she is faking cancer. Her followers or demographics are not influencing my own journey and treatment.

So, whatever gets her through whatever she is undergoing is fine by me. I choose not to watch her.

Sorry, correction. If she is peddling some misinformation about cancer and treatment options, I will have a huge problem. But, if she is just living her life and making videos in her bikini, I don't have a problem.

If she is chugging down beer while undergoing chemo...i will have a huge problem.

If she has a face mask on while getting a bikini wax..I don't care. If her trolls point that she should not need to get her pubes waxed because she will lose ALL HAIR EVERYWHERE because of chemo...I don't care.

Did you read the article? She’s going to memorial Sloan Kettering.

No, I did not read the article. My position is that it does not matter as long as she is not giving misinformation about cancer and treatment options. She should be not criticized for a)being on social media, b)trying to earn a buck from social media and c) living her life with/without cancer. Sheesh - people are free not to follow her. We have zero idea of what she is going through, how she is coping, what she is feeling. If it is of no interest then people should mind their own business.

It just seems like you might have thought to read some of the article since you chose to post multiple times about it

[Anonymous]

Yea the trollers are horrible and crazy but also the fact that so many people want to put themselves out there for public consumption and expect only praise is naive and typical of this generation that has only ever been told that they are amazing.

Should people not say anything if they don’t have anything good to say, probably, but the reality is otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

There is something wrong with you. Bullying someone online or in life because you don't believe they have cancer is about as low as you can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

There is something wrong with you. Bullying someone online or in life because you don't believe they have cancer is about as low as you can go.

The fact of the matter is, the scammers lie or exaggerate or embellish, for likes and thus, sponsors which equal money. The snarkers were just wrong THIS time. When they were proved wrong, they should have dropped it, I’ll agree with that. But I fully support questioning these influencers who make money off of our trust. I don’t blame anyone for calling out BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

Really? Death threats? People calling your oncology center to complain about you, and encourage them not to treat you?

As far as contacting people IRL, no, don’t think that I agree with that, but I think that people should be skeptical and not blindly trust these scammers, they are one and the same. Frauds. This one just happens to have cancer, but I don’t think that gives them a free pass. Would you suddenly have compassion for Trump if he had cancer? Exactly.

But she is not a scammer. Or a fraud. She has a rare form of cancer, and at age 25, she is stage 4. She shouldn’t be able to talk about it publicly? Why?

Because she makes money from what she posts. Some people aren’t blind to the fact that these influencers curate “perfect” lives, exaggerate stories of woe, and embellish every other aspect of their life, in an attempt to make money through likes and followers and the sponsorships they get from scamming people. As I said and will say again, the reputation of other scammy influencers proceeds them. It’s the cost of doing business that some people won’t trust you.

No one is forcing you to watch her, believe her, give her money. Any of it. You don't sound smart or skeptical. You sound like a psychopath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel terrible she was trolled, and I don't relate to posting this sort of hateful stuff about someone you don't know. Hopefully this article will clear things up in terms of people doubting her diagnosis.

I also think it's not right of the NY Times to name a private person who trolled a famous public figure profiting off social media. A lot of social media following is due to "snark followers". They pay the bills as much as the lovely and kind followers do when it comes to people who are only famous for social media and not personal true achievements like acting, singing, sports...So it is an unfortunate price of fame and you have to know about it and decide if it is worth it or not.

Why? It’s publicly available information. Reddit didn’t disclose the name of the snarker. The snarker made herself known by her own actions.

Did you read the article? The NYT disclosed her name. And whoever found her - the NYT chose to keep her anonymous- had to expend a great deal of effort sleuthing and putting together info to identify her. Reddit users- like DCUM users- assume anonymity.

These two are not the same. Reddit posters have user names and log in, creating a trail. DCUM does not.

People need watch their words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am menopausal and I have breast cancer and I hate SM.

However, if this young person needs to have a SM account and post stuff, I have no problem. I also don't have a problem if she is faking cancer. Her followers or demographics are not influencing my own journey and treatment.

So, whatever gets her through whatever she is undergoing is fine by me. I choose not to watch her.

Sorry, correction. If she is peddling some misinformation about cancer and treatment options, I will have a huge problem. But, if she is just living her life and making videos in her bikini, I don't have a problem.

If she is chugging down beer while undergoing chemo...i will have a huge problem.

If she has a face mask on while getting a bikini wax..I don't care. If her trolls point that she should not need to get her pubes waxed because she will lose ALL HAIR EVERYWHERE because of chemo...I don't care.

Did you read the article? She’s going to memorial Sloan Kettering.

No, I did not read the article. My position is that it does not matter as long as she is not giving misinformation about cancer and treatment options. She should be not criticized for a)being on social media, b)trying to earn a buck from social media and c) living her life with/without cancer. Sheesh - people are free not to follow her. We have zero idea of what she is going through, how she is coping, what she is feeling. If it is of no interest then people should mind their own business.

It just seems like you might have thought to read some of the article since you chose to post multiple times about it

Meh, this is an anonymous forum. We all post about multiple things multiple times without having a clue. You need to let it go if it is not impacting your life or jeopardizing unsuspecting people. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

There is something wrong with you. Bullying someone online or in life because you don't believe they have cancer is about as low as you can go.

The fact of the matter is, the scammers lie or exaggerate or embellish, for likes and thus, sponsors which equal money. The snarkers were just wrong THIS time. When they were proved wrong, they should have dropped it, I’ll agree with that. But I fully support questioning these influencers who make money off of our trust. I don’t blame anyone for calling out BS.

You think it's just collateral damage that a very sick young woman got this kind of hate towards her because someone somewhere lied about their cancer online? Boy, I hope you get the exact same kind of treatment in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel terrible she was trolled, and I don't relate to posting this sort of hateful stuff about someone you don't know. Hopefully this article will clear things up in terms of people doubting her diagnosis.

I also think it's not right of the NY Times to name a private person who trolled a famous public figure profiting off social media. A lot of social media following is due to "snark followers". They pay the bills as much as the lovely and kind followers do when it comes to people who are only famous for social media and not personal true achievements like acting, singing, sports...So it is an unfortunate price of fame and you have to know about it and decide if it is worth it or not.

Why? It’s publicly available information. Reddit didn’t disclose the name of the snarker. The snarker made herself known by her own actions.

Did you read the article? The NYT disclosed her name. And whoever found her - the NYT chose to keep her anonymous- had to expend a great deal of effort sleuthing and putting together info to identify her. Reddit users- like DCUM users- assume anonymity.

I read the article. I am puzzled by your confusion here. The NYT would have done their own investigation into the identity of the snark poster and owes no duty of anonymity to her. I really don’t get why you don’t understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am menopausal and I have breast cancer and I hate SM.

However, if this young person needs to have a SM account and post stuff, I have no problem. I also don't have a problem if she is faking cancer. Her followers or demographics are not influencing my own journey and treatment.

So, whatever gets her through whatever she is undergoing is fine by me. I choose not to watch her.

And yet...here you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel terrible she was trolled, and I don't relate to posting this sort of hateful stuff about someone you don't know. Hopefully this article will clear things up in terms of people doubting her diagnosis.

I also think it's not right of the NY Times to name a private person who trolled a famous public figure profiting off social media. A lot of social media following is due to "snark followers". They pay the bills as much as the lovely and kind followers do when it comes to people who are only famous for social media and not personal true achievements like acting, singing, sports...So it is an unfortunate price of fame and you have to know about it and decide if it is worth it or not.

Why? It’s publicly available information. Reddit didn’t disclose the name of the snarker. The snarker made herself known by her own actions.

Did you read the article? The NYT disclosed her name. And whoever found her - the NYT chose to keep her anonymous- had to expend a great deal of effort sleuthing and putting together info to identify her. Reddit users- like DCUM users- assume anonymity.

These two are not the same. Reddit posters have user names and log in, creating a trail. DCUM does not.

People need watch their words.

Unless Jeff sells DCUM and someone does IP address analytics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

There is something wrong with you. Bullying someone online or in life because you don't believe they have cancer is about as low as you can go.

The fact of the matter is, the scammers lie or exaggerate or embellish, for likes and thus, sponsors which equal money. The snarkers were just wrong THIS time. When they were proved wrong, they should have dropped it, I’ll agree with that. But I fully support questioning these influencers who make money off of our trust. I don’t blame anyone for calling out BS.

You think it's just collateral damage that a very sick young woman got this kind of hate towards her because someone somewhere lied about their cancer online? Boy, I hope you get the exact same kind of treatment in life.

I take it you’re an influencer. Get a real job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every well-known TikToker, Instagramer, or general influencer has a snark subreddit dedicated to them.

The people on those subreddits are brutal. And the #1 rule of all these snark subreddits is always "no defending" whoever the target of the snark may be. That's total BS. Why should these redditors be allowed to post whatever they want without anyone being able to fact check them or provide proof that they are lying?

I will say, though, that the Scamanda podcast and tv show really, really made me skeptical each time someone I follow shares that they have cancer or other major medical issue. It's sad that that is the case because so many people do fake it for monetary gains.

You know what? F these scammers. They are the absolute worst and they deserve everything they have coming. They have no issues preying upon others, so why should we care when they are the ones in the crosshairs?

Because...it doesn't sound like Sydney Towles is faking it? I mean, what reputable oncologist would go on the record saying a person has cancer if they don't? If that doesn't shut the haters down what will?

But that’s just the risk you take in that line of work. The reputation proceeds her. Like ACAB, or similar. People err on the side of they’re faking it for clout, or, they’re lying. Nobody is forcing her to be an influencer. It goes with the territory.

There is something wrong with you. Bullying someone online or in life because you don't believe they have cancer is about as low as you can go.

The fact of the matter is, the scammers lie or exaggerate or embellish, for likes and thus, sponsors which equal money. The snarkers were just wrong THIS time. When they were proved wrong, they should have dropped it, I’ll agree with that. But I fully support questioning these influencers who make money off of our trust. I don’t blame anyone for calling out BS.

You think it's just collateral damage that a very sick young woman got this kind of hate towards her because someone somewhere lied about their cancer online? Boy, I hope you get the exact same kind of treatment in life.

I take it you’re an influencer. Get a real job.

I take it you're a psychopath. Probably no hope for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel terrible she was trolled, and I don't relate to posting this sort of hateful stuff about someone you don't know. Hopefully this article will clear things up in terms of people doubting her diagnosis.

I also think it's not right of the NY Times to name a private person who trolled a famous public figure profiting off social media. A lot of social media following is due to "snark followers". They pay the bills as much as the lovely and kind followers do when it comes to people who are only famous for social media and not personal true achievements like acting, singing, sports...So it is an unfortunate price of fame and you have to know about it and decide if it is worth it or not.

Why? It’s publicly available information. Reddit didn’t disclose the name of the snarker. The snarker made herself known by her own actions.

Did you read the article? The NYT disclosed her name. And whoever found her - the NYT chose to keep her anonymous- had to expend a great deal of effort sleuthing and putting together info to identify her. Reddit users- like DCUM users- assume anonymity.

I read the article. I am puzzled by your confusion here. The NYT would have done their own investigation into the identity of the snark poster and owes no duty of anonymity to her. I really don’t get why you don’t understand this.

You clearly don’t know much about typical journalistic standards and how the NYT normally makes decisions like these. It didn’t add to their story to identify this woman so specifically (as contrast, they anonymized the woman who sleuthed and stalked Reddit users to find their IRL identities), and she will certainly be stalked and reviled. It’s a strange move. I noticed they aren’t allowing comments on the piece