Sydney Towles - Tik Toker with cancer being trolled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. And plenty of people on here already try to identify details about posters and their dc, and lash out if you won’t disclose identifying info.

[Anonymous]

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.

And yet...here you are.

Anonymous vs posting on FB, twitter, instagram etc. There is digital footprint but I am not writing anything that will get me in hot water. Also, what is the worse you can do to me here without sounding insane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Um, disagree. Her job is patient privacy. Hello, irony?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's now how IP address analytics work. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don’t think you know much about journalistic standards to be taking this position.

Are you someone savaging someone else online and afraid you will be identified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's now how IP address analytics work. Try again.

Oh come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Um, disagree. Her job is patient privacy. Hello, irony?

Exactly. They could have said what her job was without saying who she was and where she lives. Similar to the anon nurse. Get it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don’t think you know much about journalistic standards to be taking this position.

Are you someone savaging someone else online and afraid you will be identified?

Look you clearly don’t understand how publications make decisions about what info to report, so just move on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's now how IP address analytics work. Try again.

It is exactly how it works. There are co that build data profiles of people and piece together into. And IP address is considered personal info under most state laws. You clearly don’t work anywhere near data or advertising

[Anonymous]

I’m not at all surprised that the worst offender was a 53 year old woman. Everyone always assumes the most unhinged posters are teens or maybe early 20s at most. But I’ve found that the ones who go really, REALLY hard about stuff are always older. The people who really believed that Harry Styles and that other dude also in One Direction were in a relationship … the people really invested in if Beyonce was ever actually pregnant … the Meghan Markle people … a very significant portion of them are 35+ if not 50+. This is the same situation as the QAnon true believers, Sandy Hook “truthers” and other conspiracies, but just with relatively lower stakes stuff.

I believe Slate (maybe?) had an article a few years back about Sandy Hook denialists and there was literally no way to change their minds. They were so deep into the conspiracy that it was now a part of their identity. They thought they had uncovered the truth and that they did their own research and found a different (and obviously wrong) conclusion. Sincerely believing that it didn’t happen is a huge boost to their ego, to the point that the conspiracy itself is a deep part of their “self.” A person letting go of the conspiracy at this point in time would also be letting go of over 10 years(!) of their lives that they devoted to “researching” Sandy Hook and there is just no way those people could go through that. They’re in too deep now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not at all surprised that the worst offender was a 53 year old woman. Everyone always assumes the most unhinged posters are teens or maybe early 20s at most. But I’ve found that the ones who go really, REALLY hard about stuff are always older. The people who really believed that Harry Styles and that other dude also in One Direction were in a relationship … the people really invested in if Beyonce was ever actually pregnant … the Meghan Markle people … a very significant portion of them are 35+ if not 50+. This is the same situation as the QAnon true believers, Sandy Hook “truthers” and other conspiracies, but just with relatively lower stakes stuff.

I believe Slate (maybe?) had an article a few years back about Sandy Hook denialists and there was literally no way to change their minds. They were so deep into the conspiracy that it was now a part of their identity. They thought they had uncovered the truth and that they did their own research and found a different (and obviously wrong) conclusion. Sincerely believing that it didn’t happen is a huge boost to their ego, to the point that the conspiracy itself is a deep part of their “self.” A person letting go of the conspiracy at this point in time would also be letting go of over 10 years(!) of their lives that they devoted to “researching” Sandy Hook and there is just no way those people could go through that. They’re in too deep now.

Wow that all sounds nuts. But, I do sort of think Beyoncé wasn’t pregnant… 😜

- 50 yo woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not at all surprised that the worst offender was a 53 year old woman. Everyone always assumes the most unhinged posters are teens or maybe early 20s at most. But I’ve found that the ones who go really, REALLY hard about stuff are always older. The people who really believed that Harry Styles and that other dude also in One Direction were in a relationship … the people really invested in if Beyonce was ever actually pregnant … the Meghan Markle people … a very significant portion of them are 35+ if not 50+. This is the same situation as the QAnon true believers, Sandy Hook “truthers” and other conspiracies, but just with relatively lower stakes stuff.

I believe Slate (maybe?) had an article a few years back about Sandy Hook denialists and there was literally no way to change their minds. They were so deep into the conspiracy that it was now a part of their identity. They thought they had uncovered the truth and that they did their own research and found a different (and obviously wrong) conclusion. Sincerely believing that it didn’t happen is a huge boost to their ego, to the point that the conspiracy itself is a deep part of their “self.” A person letting go of the conspiracy at this point in time would also be letting go of over 10 years(!) of their lives that they devoted to “researching” Sandy Hook and there is just no way those people could go through that. They’re in too deep now.

Wow that all sounds nuts. But, I do sort of think Beyoncé wasn’t pregnant… 😜

- 50 yo woman

There’s whole layers to it though, not just “they hired a surrogate and lied about it.” People think she and Jay-Z had someone killed and took the baby or something!

[Anonymous]

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.

The NY Times would not have named Connie if she didn't agree to be named. They flat out said that a lot of people didn't want to talk to them and refused to let their names be used. THEY HAD HER PERMISSION.

[Anonymous]

The NYTimes had big this energy:


They didn’t have the troll’s permission and didn’t need it, but maybe she did confirm her identity to them which was probably a mistake. They can’t just go off what the internet sleuth tells them, but if they contact you and you confirm it’s your account, then they can run it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don’t think you know much about journalistic standards to be taking this position.

Are you someone savaging someone else online and afraid you will be identified?

Look you clearly don’t understand how publications make decisions about what info to report, so just move on

The irony. You are clearly the one ignorant of journalistic practices.

My guess is you are one of those savage freaks online who is afraid that what you’ve doled out will come back.