Tangle - Libs of TikTok.

Episode Date: April 21, 2022

A "very online" story, but one that quite a few listeners have asked about. The controversy surrounding the alleged "doxxing" of the creator of the Libs of TikTok social media account by Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz.You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I am your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about libs of TikTok. It's a controversy you may or may not have heard of. If you haven't, we're going to explain it first before we jump in because I know it's kind of a very online issue. But before we do,

we have to issue a correction from yesterday. Not my favorite thing to do, but always important. In yesterday's edition of Tangle, there was a little bit of an error slash typo in our numbers section. We wrote that 95% of people aged five and up have had one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. This was just a simple typo mistake. It should have said 95% of people 65 and up. We were missing the six in front of the five. But we did also make an actual more important error, a more direct error. We listed 91% of people 65 and up being fully vaccinated. The number was actually 90%. This was based on sort of using two contradicting, conflicting sources for our data, which we shouldn't do. We were using the New York Times COVID tracker, and that's the number they have. So I apologize for that.

This is the 59th Tangle correction in its 143-week history and the first correction since March 28th. I track these corrections and place them at the front of the podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with readers. All right, so with that out of the way, on to our quick hits section. our quick hits section. First up, Russia's President Vladimir Putin test-launched a new nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile he said should make Moscow's enemies stop and think. Number two, federal prosecutors charged 21 people with health care schemes related to COVID-19. federal prosecutors charged 21 people with health care schemes related to COVID-19.

Number three, Senator Bernie Sanders is not ruling out a presidential run in 2024 if Joe Biden doesn't run for re-election. Separately, Sanders is visiting Amazon workers fighting to unionize in New York City. The tennis tournament Wimbledon announced it was banning players from Russia and Belarus this week. Number five, the Energy Department launched a $6 billion credit program to prevent financially distressed nuclear power plants from folding. Some are up in arms after the identity of the woman behind a popular conservative social media account was revealed by The Washington Post on Tuesday. Some on the right saying The Washington Post doxed her, meaning they outed her effectively in an effort to silence her. I have to say that I don't really get the outrage here.

The biggest issue here is that as the left is exposed for what it is, as the radicalism is exposed, and as they become more unpopular because of that radicalism, finally you have the left's last gasp. And the last gasp of the left is we will attack anybody who exposes this stuff. Well, I think that what I'm doing is very effective, and I think that a lot of people wanted to shut me down. They wanted to intimidate me into silence. And unfortunately for them, that's just never going to happen. If you just said what, you are probably not alone. This is a very online story, but one that I think is pretty important and relevant to cover. It's also one a few readers have asked about, so we are deciding to write about it today. So, the background. There is an account

on Twitter called Libs of TikTok that posts videos of various citizens, often school teachers or online influencers, discussing hot-button political issues like abortion, LGBTQ issues, or critical race theory. The videos usually highlight progressive behavior or people making political comments from the far left. For instance, on April 11th, the account posted a video of an elementary school teacher explaining that he was trans and talking about how he described being trans to his students. On April 12th, they shared a post from a woman who shared a photo of an abortion cake, a celebration birthday abortion cake after terminating her own pregnancy.

On April 20th, the account shared a video of an Old Dominion University professor explaining why they described pedophiles as quote, minor attracted persons in an effort to destigmatize them. As the New York Post described it, the account prides itself on exposing far-left hypocrisy and liberal wokeness on steroids. The account was run by an anonymous person. I don't do this for money or fame, that person told the Post in a February interview. I'm not some politician or blue check journalist, and people feel like they have someone they can talk to when they have no one else to ask to help them spread it. The woman told the Post that she relies on direct messages in her inbox each day from parents and ordinary citizens who want their

stories to have a platform. And it has become remarkably popular. Last week, the account had over 600,000 followers on Twitter, and its contents are regularly appearing on Fox News and in other major conservative news outlets. The account also had a real-world impact. In one of the more high-profile outcomes, a teacher named Tyler Wren in Oklahoma was fired from his job after libs of TikTok elevated a video of him. In the video, Wren addressed his LGBTQ students, saying, If your parents don't love and accept you for who you are this Christmas, F them. I'm your parents now.

I'm proud of you. Drink some water. I love you. Bye. In February, the person behind the account began giving anonymous interviews about their work to outlets like the New York Post. Then, on Monday, the Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz published an expose on the anonymous person behind the account, in which she names her as Chaya Rychik, describes her background, and recounts how she came to run the account.

Lorenz described the account as shaping public discourse, but also spreading anti-LGBTQ plus sentiment. In the days since, the account's following has ballooned to over 900,000 people, and a fresh controversy has bloomed along with it. So, here's the controversy. There are a few threads here. One is that the account owner and her conservative allies have said Lorenz, the reporter, quote-unquote, doxed the account owner, revealing her name and contact information, and had been harassing family members and friends with interview questions and appearances at their homes. Lorenz has defended her work, noting that Rychick's name had already surfaced on the internet, and that it was identical to another woman who lived in the same state and was being mistaken for the owner of the account. Once Lorenz's story was posted, though, a third woman with the same name began being harassed

online as well. The other thread of controversy stemming from the Post's story is that the Washington Post initially included a link to Rychik's real estate license, which also had a physical address and a phone number. The Post quietly removed the link after people pointed it out. In the copy of the story, Lorenz and Post editors also noted that Rychik was an Orthodox Jew, which many found inappropriate and irrelevant. On top of that, it was controversial that the story itself was written by Lorenz in particular, a prominent internet personality who used to work at the New York Times and now covers the internet beat for the Washington Post.

Just a few weeks ago, Lorenz had a tearful interview where she explained the harassment she has received online for her reporting and described the horror of people seeking out her friends and family members on the internet to berate them. Now, many feel she has just hypocritically invited harassment onto another private, previously anonymous citizen with her work. The divide has broken down conservative and liberal lines, with the right defending Rychik and the left defending Lorenz's story. The coverage has caused a lot of debate about power dynamics and journalism ethics, and in a moment we're going to look at those perspectives from both sides, and then my take.

First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. The right criticized the piece, saying Lorenz doxed the libs of TikTok account holder. Some say this is a part of the mainstream media's effort to silence dissent. Others pointed out the hypocrisy of the left and said the media are the ones with the real power. In Newsweek, Angie Speaks said this is part of a new trend, shaming private citizens who dissent. The controversial expose in the Washington Post by journalist Taylor Lorenz has revealed the identity of a popular anonymous Twitter account, Libs of TikTok. The article included private information about the account holder in a naked attempt to shame her into silence, Speak said. And, as such, it is part of a larger trend

in which liberals use legacy and social media to silence dissent. The Libs of TikTok account exploded in popularity last year for hosting viral videos of overly zealous liberals engaging in bizarre behavior and advocacy. As bizarre as doxing an anonymous account over political differences seems, Lorenz went as far as harassing the family members of the woman behind the account in an attempt to gather information. One need not agree with the political stances of Trump supporters or the libs of TikTok account to feel apprehensive about these attacks on anonymity and privacy being

normalized and celebrated as brave activism, she wrote. The Washington Post expose not only failed to explore the cultural and political reasons why the Libs of TikTok Twitter account gained such cultural prominence, it also failed to contextualize why the choice to dox the anonymous user served any real political or journalistic purpose beyond a show of malice and intimidation. This kind of petty behavior is a common theme among the self-appointed digital authorities of the corporate media class, who mask their desire to silence independent actors that pose a threat to their discursive dominance beneath a facade of activism and the work of exposing pernicious actors. In The Federalist, Jordan Boyd said the media's main function is to destroy the right,

not understand its appeal. Lorenz sought to destroy the account's owner by publishing the creator's name and even linking to details about the user's day job, Boyd wrote. She even explicitly referenced the creator as a powerful Orthodox Jew who's shaping the media, an anti-Semitic trope, despite the religion's irrelevance to the story. Lorenz's hit piece was more than just bad faith smears with no other discernible cause or effect. It was a diversion, so that she didn't have to explore why content documenting leftist crazies and then reposted by libs of TikTok resonates with the public. The libs of TikTok Twitter account achieved some fame because it gave parents and taxpayers a peek into the leftist radicalism that often

happens behind closed doors in schools, such as advertisements for genital mutilation and pornographic library books, Boyd wrote. When the corporate media repeatedly claimed that critical race theory isn't taught in schools, Libs of TikTok posted an avalanche of videos and pictures showing the opposite. Its amplification of left-wing radicalism in schools attracted the attention of the media, politicians, and even Elon Musk. More importantly, it horrified parents who were already growing restless about leftist ideology pervading the nation's educational institution. In the Washington Examiner, Stephen L. Miller said Lorenz is simply following the new rules of journalism. In 2017, CNN's Andrew Kaczynski tracked down an anonymous Reddit user

who had created a GIF of President Donald Trump clotheslining a wrestler at a WWE event with the CNN logo replacing the opposing wrestler's head, Miller wrote. CNN found this to be docs-worthy simply because it was retweeted by Trump. CNN did not reveal the user's identity, but stated that it reserves the right to publish his identity should his future behavior not meet its expectations. In 2019, when a joke video of a drunk Nancy Pelosi, the creator simply reduced the speed of the video, spread around, Kevin Poulsen of the Daily Beast tracked down and doxed the person who did it, revealing he is an ex-con living in the Bronx who was working as a forklift operator. In 2018, HuffPost writer Luke O'Brien doxed and revealed the identity of a pro-Trump Twitter user, including information

regarding a popular Brooklyn deli that her siblings owned and was not related to her social media posts. These are just three examples of what has become an industry standard, he added. It's a standard that now has some reporters comparing libs of TikTok to Harvey Weinstein and the Watergate scandal. However, in singling out Taylor Lorenz, what the political right doesn't understand is this is about politics and shutting down opposing speech. That is to say, speech that Lorenz or Kaczynski or the Daily Beast are ideologically opposed to. Of course, this is also about media power. Taylor Lorenz is not the ultimate problem. The problem is news outlets and infotainment companies using their outsized power and vast budgets to harass and about media power. Taylor Lorenz is not the ultimate problem. The problem is news outlets and infotainment companies using their outsized power and vast budgets to harass and dox private

citizens they disagree with. It's a new journalistic model for an industry that sees its grip loosening on what news can control and create. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. Most on the left defend the piece, saying it is worthwhile journalism. Some call Rychik a hate monger who needed to be exposed as the real hypocrite for her own doxing of private citizens. Others question whether the piece was worth publishing at all. In MSNBC, Kara Olimo said there is a proper term for what happened to libs of TikTok, and it's not doxing. It's an influential account that has more than 600,000 Twitter followers.

According to the Post's reporting, it was suspended on TikTok for violating community guidelines and has been amplified by public figures like Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, and Meghan McCain, as well as other on the far right, Alimo said. The account has called for teachers who come out to their students to be fired on the spot, called people who don't conform to traditional gender identities mentally ill, and accused people who teach children about LGBTQ identities of abuse. It has been suspended by Twitter twice for engaging in targeted harassment. There are many reasons it's inappropriate to publicly expose a person's private information, a practice known in the internet parlance as doxing. But this isn't one

of them, Alimo said. Let me be clear, doxing can be dangerous or even deadly. There are many people who should be able to share information anonymously online, for example, to document their experiences as transgender people if they fear discrimination or even violence for openly sharing their identities. But there's no justifiable reason to protect the identity of someone like Rychik on social media so she can spread this kind of intolerance with impunity. The public has a significant interest in knowing who is behind accounts that have major influence on public discourse about important issues like libs of TikTok. The proper term for what happened to Rychik long predates the internet. It's called accountability. The Los Angeles Blade wrote that

the real victims were the ones libs of TikTok is targeting. Libs of TikTok regularly targets individual teachers and their workplaces, releasing their personal information that includes school and individual names as well as social media accounts and leading its audience to harass the schools on social media, the Blade wrote. On April 10th, Rychek posted a Twitter thread that shared a trans TikTok creator's video and tagged the school they work in. Libs of TikTok celebrated after that school was forced to block the account and some of its followers, restrict comments, and more, with Rychek writing, they aren't coping with all the attention. On April 11th, she praised an Oklahoma middle school for firing a teacher, quote, after complaints of grooming and this TikTok plus others

containing questionable content were brought to the principal's attention, end quote. A follow-up post included the teacher's name and post on a local Facebook group supporting our LGBTQA plus kids. And on April 12th, Rycheck tagged another school district for featuring a drag teacher performance, calling it sickening. In a follow-up tweet, the account noted that the school had restricted comments after Libs of TikTok told its large following to imagine if they focused on teaching math, science, and history instead of drag. An April 14th Media Matters review found that Libs of TikTok has misgendered at least 14 individuals in 15 of its tweets so far this year, receiving more than 113,000 total engagements for content in seeming violation of Twitter's terms of service,

they wrote. Rycheck's account was also part of a broader right-wing harassment campaign last July against two trans parents of a newborn, instructing its followers to call Child Protective Services on them and directing them to one parent's Instagram page. The couple faced widespread harassment online, and one of the parents had to make their social media profile private due to threats of violence. Matt Taibbi criticized Lorenz's piece, saying it was an impressively vacuous nothing burger. My problem is there's no allegation of corruption or impropriety in the story, TV said. The Lorenz piece essentially accuses libs of TikTok of being popular and driving legislation like the Florida bill barring discussion of sexual

orientation in schools through third grade. Also, Joe Rogan, Glenn Greedwalt, and Tucker Carlson like it. It doesn't really go beyond that. This is the latest effort in a genre that's becoming vogue in center-left media, which is ironic because writers from outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post used to look all the way down their noses at Fox schticks like the O'Reilly ambush. Meanwhile, other forms of say-cheese mother-effer type journalism like Project Ver, have usually been considered beneath contempt by J-school types. There have always been gotcha artists in right-wing media, but the surprise visit is increasingly being deployed to out-random people whose main offense is supporting conservative causes, Taibbi wrote. The first bizarre case I noticed was in 2018 when CNN knocked on the door

of an old lady in Florida who was part of Team Trump Broward County. There have been many more of these as of late. The Post did another story outing people who donated to the Canadian trucker protests, including random individuals giving as little as $100. The Intercept did a story that went through hacked Gab accounts and identified accounts in what they called an online safe space for white supremacists. These stories aren't done to expose corruption unless you think being pro-Trump or supporting Canadian truckers or being on Gab qualifies, which apparently is what's going on in a lot of cases. Alright, that is it for the right and the left's take, which brings us to my take. So first, I'm going to tell you why I think it was fair to publish Rychik's name and run with this piece,

and then I'm going to explain all the things I think were wrong with the story. To start, I don't buy the argument that this piece was inappropriate to pursue. Not from Taibbi and not from commentators on the right. The account had well surpassed public interest status when its videos were being shared regularly on the most popular news network in America, and the person behind the account was doing anonymous media interviews for weeks. If you're at Rydcheck, you can't expect to have millions of people see your videos, do interviews with outlets like the New York Post, and also remain anonymous. You can't post any teacher who utters the words

I came out to my students should be fired on the spot, get actual teachers fired, and then not expect people not to investigate who you are. That is just not how it works. If you have a public facing, influential platform, people are going to try and find out who you are. But there's a more practical reason for the story too. Taylor Lorenz didn't find out who Rych. But there's a more practical reason for the story too. Taylor Lorenz didn't find out who Rychek was. An internet sleuth did. Her name had already been circulating for three days and was first posted on a website I linked to in today's newsletter. I had seen it on Twitter in response to the libs of TikTok videos which I watch. The name also happened to be a very popular name, which is why, before the Washington Post published their story, people were already accusing the wrong woman of being behind the account, and why

after the Washington Post published it, people got it confused again by attacking an online influencer from the United Kingdom. Doing the work Lorenz did, knocking on doors, interviewing people, confirming with other higher-eye checks they weren't the same person is journalism, and it's totally fair play, especially to those who were not the same ride check. In other words, this piece was a far more legitimate act of journalism in my eyes than CNN tracking down someone who posted a meme or a woman who was fooled by a Russian disinformation campaign in a Facebook group. I did not think those were legitimate acts of journalism. This woman, though, has real influence, a huge following, her name was already out, and other people were being mistaken for her.

That's a story, full stop. But it doesn't mean there wasn't a lot wrong with it. For starters, the story did basically nothing to investigate the success of the account. There was seemingly no curiosity about why an anonymous account showing college professors destigmatizing pedophilia, or K-12 teachers telling kids to pledge allegiance to a pride flag or promising to keep teaching critical race theory even if it is banned was getting so much traction. There was no balance in the reporting. There was no real space given to people explaining why the account was important or valuable to them. No inquisition into the narratives it was trying

to push back on, nor any reckoning with the fact that the account essentially republishes videos people have already put online. Instead, Lorenz focused entirely on the horrible effects of the account, that it was drumming up fear and hatred of LGBTQ people, that it was causing right-wing fury at the left, and that it had actually cost some people their jobs. All of this is true, and important, and should have been in the piece, but to write that story without the context that the account was largely covering stories being ignored by the center and center-left media might be precisely why the account exists in the first place. When I wrote about legislation banning critical race theory

and the parental rights bill in Florida, I criticized both repeatedly. Part of my point was that the bills created to address them were overly broad and unnecessary since parents already had power to influence what happened in schools. Another point I made was that a lot of this stuff was imaginary, that is, solutions looking for a problem. Accounts like Libs of TikTok, however blunt an instrument, are an example of the kind of power parents have and also proof that some of this stuff is really happening. This isn't hidden camera footage or entrapment. Sometimes the videos are context-free, and Rychek's comments that accompany them are often bigoted and cruel. But it's mostly a collection of videos people are already putting online themselves for the

world to see, now just being elevated to a much larger audience. Similar accounts are popular on the left, too. The account RightWingWatch is verified on Twitter and posts videos of conservative news hosts calling for CEOs to be tried for treason, or Michelle Bachman calling Representative Ilhan Omar an Islamic supremacist, or self-proclaimed prophets claiming Biden will be removed by God. The account focuses more on public-facing conservatives than random citizens, as Libs of TikTok does, which I personally find a bit more palatable, but it's a similar brand of online warfare. The Washington Post also made a huge mistake in its reporting. In its initial piece, it published Rychik's real estate license, which included her phone number and physical address. This is,

quite literally, the definition of doxing. Rather than accept responsibility, they hid behind a rather lame excuse. We link to publicly available professional information, the paper told a Fox News reporter. When asked why the information was then scrubbed without comment, they said, ultimately, we deemed it unnecessary. No kidding. Sure, the info was public, but it is also hard to find. It's not the kind of thing most normal people would be able to dig up on the first page of a Google result, and it's precisely the kind of easy-to-access information that leads to widespread harassment of an individual. To remove the link without notifying readers why or explaining it until another reporter asks you speaks volumes. In the end, this whole story is a nice encapsulation of the circular firing squad that has become our

modern-day culture war. Taylor Lorenz, a journalist who does TV segments about the online harassment she receives, exposes an anonymous citizen running a popular Twitter account. That citizen, Chaya Raichik, spends her days publishing videos of random citizens in an attempt to get them fired, harassed, and otherwise ostracized. When she's exposed, she complains about her life being upended by having her personal details put online by a journalist who herself complains about online harassment and who is now reporting on an account that incites online harassment of others. And around we go. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. Patrick from Lancaster, Pennsylvania asked,

Do you think Congress can get a comprehensive immigration law passed within the next two to three years? It has been since 1986 that we had meaningful legislation, and it causes massive issues with the president having to make decisions about immigration. Patrick, frankly, I would be shocked. For me, comprehensive immigration reform is like a top three political priority. I think well-regulated, humane immigration is an extremely important part of America's success and our future and a part of tamping down the political divisions in our country. But we have a broken immigration system and the fault lines we have in Congress right now, it's just really hard to see it coming to fruition. One encouraging side, though, recently

is that members of the alliance for a new immigration consensus in the Senate are pushing for reforms right now. Senators Dick Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois, and John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas, seem genuinely interested in reviving negotiations. I think having a Republican from a southern border state on board is extremely important, though he has thrown cold water on it being a quote-unquote comprehensive bill like past attempts. Any bill, though, that pairs protections for DACA recipients with border security probably has a chance, but it's all the stuff that comes after that which will be difficult. I'd keep an eye on those negotiations

for now, but I'd also keep your hopes minimal. If it doesn't happen before the 2022 elections, it is probably kaput. All right, next up is our story that matters. This is a scary one. For the first time since 2013, the Colorado River has been named America's most endangered river. The river provides drinking water to more than 40 million people across seven states and 30 tribal nations, as well as supplying a huge chunk of water for the southwest agriculture and outdoor recreation industries. It irrigates 15% of America's farmland, which produces 90% of the region's winter vegetables. On top of that, water flow has been so low that river dams can no longer produce

electricity with the currents. By 2050, experts warn the flow could fall another 10 to 30 percent because of climate change. Axios has the story. There's a link to it in today's newsletter. All right, next up is our numbers section. 145,000 is the number of followers the Libs of TikTok account gained in the first 24 hours after the Washington Post published its story. The number of followers the account has as of this writing is 914,000. $46.5 billion is the amount of money Elon Musk said he has secured to purchase Twitter. The amount of money 21 people allegedly defrauded the government of with various fraudulent COVID-19 related aid schemes is $150 million. And the median price of a new home in the United States is now at an all-time high, $375,300. All right, last but not least, have a nice day section.

A small French town 30 miles outside of Paris has found a novel way to power its streetlights, bioluminescence. Soon, the lamps are going to be popping up all across France. Rather than being powered by the electrical grid, they are running on light from living organisms, the process known as bioluminescence,

created when chemical reactions occurring inside an organism's body produces light. Fireflies, fungi, and fish all glow through bioluminescence, and now France is collecting some of the marine bacteria called Alivigro fissura to store inside saltwater-filled tubes and adding a unique element to its streetlights. The BBC has the story. You can check it out in today's newsletter, and the pictures are pretty cool. out in today's newsletter and the pictures are pretty cool. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, it is Thursday. That means if you want to hear from us tomorrow, you

have to subscribe to Tangle, www.readtangle.com slash membership. I hope you go do that real quick because it supports our work and keeps us going. Thanks so much. Otherwise, we'll see you Monday. Peace. also helped create our logo. The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. Bye.