***BREAKING*** MSM now actively Doxxing private citizens because 'opinions'.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

We feel free to ignore your hatred for Muslims.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Sublimecraft

We feel free to ignore your hatred for Muslims.

So far, you haven't ignored anything of mine. I would ask that you try harder - practice constantly, it will lead to success.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Sublimecraft

We feel free to ignore your hatred for Muslims.

So far, you haven't ignored anything of mine. I would ask that you try harder - practice constantly, it will lead to success.

Apparently it lead you to success here on ATS.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: pompel9

Oh yeah. Just speaking in general. Too many crazy people out there so it's better to remain anonymous.

I agree. I will never use my real name online, it's way to dangerous.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sue CNN for slander! Contact the FCC and get their license pulled! Effing hit back with War on CNN!

I don't see CNN profiling ISIS terrorists to call them out, despite their history of beheadings. CNN is like Hillary calling American's Deplorables...alienating their own audience. CNN is already raking lowest in viewership. Looks like CNN is burning down their own house

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sue CNN for slander! Contact the FCC and get their license pulled! Effing hit back with War on CNN!

That's esactly what Jerry Farwell did to Larry Flynt.

CNN is now making it a habit of antagonizing its viewers.

Nothing new; internet flaming has gone on since the US internet's inception even on old baud suction cup your rotary phone into it days...

what is the difference between this sort of thing; and telemarketers or marketers spamming your phone/mailbox with a bunch of crap you hang up on, look at and toss right away?

Nothing except the format... spam aka junk has been delivered online in any possible way since the early days; so many stupid taskbars you could have maybe an inch of room at the bottom. A desktop filled with so many shortcuts they cease to be shortcuts.

etc etc. you know this sort of thing is probably like the 'ol "make money answering surveys online in your pj's".

Here's the real threat... Christian countries have to share; or else lose their "separation of church and state" status or stranglehold as an influence on politics. Those that infiltrate the political forum with their religious bent in mind? Automatically; do not have the people's interest in mind. So automatically unfit and not qualified for political office. Same could be said for other "lobby" based professions.

So we have a populist which means; corporate whore... one that works for ALL corporate lobbyist interests; ahead of the masses... add the cherry on top of an evangelical vice president; and well one's head might as well be in a vice; as not much is going to make any sense as CENTS is all that matter.

So hey; never you mind.

Take care.

I'm confused how this is doxing. Did anyone produce any PII that was not readily available by visiting Amy's page?

Doxing is providing PII that is not normally available - something not made available though an individual posting on a social media source. If a media source (or a person or any source..) just points to an existing site.. a social site no less, to point it out.. that is not doxing. You clearly OP, don't understand what doxing is.

If someone posts on a clearly visible, social networking site, that is obviously done to make yourself noticed. Make a point. Make it public. And if a major news network should point to your comments, you should be dancing in the street. Your viewpoint has been made massively public to many people. Huzzah! Victory!

But why not make it seem like a media source is publishing personal info not normally obtainable.. to promote your agenda huh?

a reply to: fleabit

She did not post her real name

They did, along with details of her life that were not public

They also found out who her husband was, contacted his employer and told them about her tweets, and that resulted in him being let go from his job

It's not rocket science.

Don't want the consequences of being a bigot then dont publicly be a bigot.

Easy.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Sublimecraft

All the years I've read your posts on ATS, you have def got more anti-Islam and like an angry old man.
Now you give airtime to people on Twitter who are 'doxxing' wtf mate?, are they even famous or in power? You know, the person in the OP?
You seem obsessed to me.

Indeed.

Henceforth, feel free to ignore my posts and just move on to the one below mine.

Thanks for the offer but I'll reply to whatever I like, it's fun seeing your mates 'star' you even if you said the sky is not blue lol

originally posted by: testingtesting
I wonder what would happen If we had to give up our fake names and had to post on forums and such with our real names?.
I would stand by everything I say on the net I'm not fussed who knows what I think and express online so I'm for it.

I agree.
I stand by everything I've ever posted online....at the time I posted it I meant it.

Don’t blast your opinions on the internet if you can’t handle the backlash. It’s surprising that people feel safe from the repercussions of their online rants and thoughts. All is fair on the internet. If you can’t handle it, get the f••• off. Btw, I’m no sympathizer of Islam. People hate trump and his supporters but stand up for Mohammed supporters. And that dude sucked waaaaaaay more. Whatever. Idiots

Just breaking ****

It's 'bad' to hate on islam but it's ok to HATE on Trump and his supporters.

Film at 11.

a reply to: neo96
I just don’t get the blatant double standards. But I’m a crazy person who worships logic and truth, not warlords and murderous pedophiles. And not one Muslim or Muslim sympathizer can come up with a plausible excuse for such a disgusting profits actions. Instead they get quiet, ignore facts and talk of tolerance. Psshhhhhh. Pathetic, scared, politically correct, sorry ass booger butts who apparently can’t make a distinction between peace and war and love and hate. Does anyone have the balls to attempt to justify the absolute glorification of such a vile human?

a reply to: Starhooker

I just don’t get the blatant double standards.

Most don't.

Be it political ideology or religious choice.

They aren't born that way.

They're made.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

HuffPost

Firstly...

dox
dɒks/
verbinformal
gerund or present participle: doxxing

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

"hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures"

Secondly, the subject matter pertaining to her 'doxxing' is that shes a Trump-loving Islamiphobe who has posted lots of anti-Islam rhetoric - this is irrelevant in relation to the 'doxxing'. Doxxing is the latest weapon in the deep states MSM arsenal, because it's the private citizens that are doing the ground work and sending links and evidence and comments up the social media exposure-rate chain so that things are bought to the publics attention - which normally destroys the MSM narrative in an instant - and they don't like that, not one little bit.

So, now, the MSM has recognised that private citizens are just as powerful as standing armies and entire media conglomerates.

and they should be scared sh!tless too - hell hath no fury like an average joe shafted and on a mission to seek & destroy. There are plenty of private citizens out there that are truly awesome in their online dialogue beyond that of which any of the current MSM are able to combat with - they literally destroy talking points and commentary every single day.

That's right - as we all know, the MSM (yes, that includes FOX) are agenda driven mechanisms that are immoral, unethical and quite frankly a real and present danger to peace and the pursuit of liberty & happiness......on the planet.

I literally know 100s of people personally, maybe 1000s - none of them have ever, EVER, expressed a desire to war with anyone, ever. But, turn on the TV and you'd be convinced anarchy was just around the corner, save only for the might of government oversight and group-think mentality that parrots the MSM.

Is there a situation where someone like Amy Mek should be publicly identified and left to the inevitable horde of pro/anti whatever to either extol or execute them via social media which bleeds out into real life?

If you are not willing to stand up and take the negatives for your opinions, why is she posting them online to the public in the first place?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What's interesting is that in that article they mentioned this lady creating a website solely for the purpose of "doxxing" supposed Muslims.

I guess she got a taste of her own medicine.

That's how I see it, you want to spew out that kinda venom you are opening yourself up to blowback.

Many of those that are supporting this woman simply agree with her venom .

Cool I find your posts offensive

So I am sure you won’t mind if someone find out your real name, and starts to contact you and you families employers demanding you be fired

In fact seeing as has you think she got what she deserved I am sure you will find no problem with posting your real name and place of work

If you can find anything that I've ever posted that is even remotely questionable or offensive to my employer. I am not in the business of spewing hatred and bigotry on the internet so I have nothing to be concerned about.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: fleabit

She did not post her real name

They did, along with details of her life that were not public

They also found out who her husband was, contacted his employer and told them about her tweets, and that resulted in him being let go from his job

Just read up on everything - and yea, not ok with this. I mean.. people probably could have probably figured out who she was, if they really wanted to (since her name was pretty much the account name), but I don't agree with their means at all, nor their harassment of her husband.

I don't agree with her views - but she has the right to express them all the same. Pity a news source thinks it's ok to stoop to the levels of the most vile type of people you can find on places like Reddit, etc.