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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was fascinating and sad. I wonder why they only revealed the name of one. Was that person so much worse?

Op. Not sure but I also wondered why they chose to disclose her, and with so much detail- where she’s from, her job, and name. Hopefully it will teach her and others a lesson, but I guess I feel like they could have done it more gently. People expect to be anonymous

If you leave enough clues that people can figure out who you are, you should not expect to be anonymous.

That’s not accurate and you know it

Anonymous wrote:Some of this hate seems obvious and almost self inviting, as if the hate will also bring her views. And views make her money, even if she's not asking for it outright. It's obvious that posting about your chemo infusion and the nausea and making a "feel bad for me" style post and then soon after posting a scuba video from the Caribbean is going to cause people to hate and doubt you. But that's still engagement.

I dislike all SM stuff like this. I really don't like attention seekers

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.

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 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.