Talk:Libs of TikTok

Should LibsOfTikTOk be categorized as Category:Disinformation operations?

Chaya Raichik is about to be sued by a drag queen whom she defamed with doctored material. She spread the fake video even after it had been debunked by media and authorities clarified no crime was depicted in it. She has never deleted the slanderous tweet, though. And she's spread fake news before, some instances of which are already explained in the entry. What are you all's opinions? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have any sources which talk about a disinformation operation, remember it isn't the same thing as spreading disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No because it is not disinformation and honestly this whole article is siting a left wing source with no proof or evidence. It has been reveal as of rachak's instagram that there has beeen no bomb threat and the local police also did not know what happened. The narrative was an attempt to defame rachiak ExperimentXOfficial (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? If it's about the bomb threat to the Boston Children's Hospital, an arrest has already been made in connection to that. And police have already confirmed that, actually, dozens of bomb threats have been made against that target following Chaya Raichik's posts. You're either confused or lying, and you should not be allowed to edit this entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This article needs work (neutrality)

Raichik remained anonymous until her identity was revealed in April 2022 by both software developer Travis Brown and Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz. Some conservatives accused Lorenz of doxxing as a result, while others defended Lorenz from criticism

You can't give a 1:1 description of doxing and then claim that it wasn't. recentlyryan RecentlyRyan 09:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeats what reliable sources report, which in this case is that it is disputed whether the reveal was doxxing. It would be original research to assert that the report was doxxing based on our own interpretation of the circumstances. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be included in the entry that Chaya Raichik has a long history of posting people's personal and employment information online to provoke harassment from her followers, something that Taylor Lorenz never did to her, and that she only stopped so doing after lawyering up. It is not neutral to write line after line describing her and her followers whining about her being "doxed", when her own blatant participation in this practice is left without acknowledgement. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

another day, another SPA starting a fake debate over a completely wrong interpretation of NPOV Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How is this article any way "neutral"? If I were to say "Clearly this article is written from a radical leftists point of view." I am no longer being neutral, I am labeling the author with an opinion and setting the reader in a specific way of thinking before they have even read what I have to say. I have no idea if the author is an extremist with their politics, so its unfair to lable them as extreme. The term "Far Right" has incredibly negative connotations associated with it (as does the term "Radical Left"). So I feel it shouldn't be included in the article. In fact the terms "Far Right" and "Radical Left" should never be used as a descriptor unless said person has publicly stated they are in one of these categories. Far right and radical left are labels created by the opposing party in an attempt to discredit anyone givin such a lable, thereby giving the impression that they are "extreme" or don't represent the main stream views of their respective parties. If most of the people on the right or left agree with the view point of someone labeled "far right" or "radical left", then the person with said label is just right or left. There is nothing extreme or radical with their view point (at least within their own party) if most others in the party hold the same point of view. And Libs of Tik Tok isn't even presenting its own point of view when posting videos. It is literally just reposting the videos of other creators while adding no original content or commentary. Now the comments section on any of Libs of Tik Tok is an entirely different story. There are many people who post in the comments section who definitely hold extreme views, but again thats the comments section and if you've ever been on the internet before you'll know that any video on the internet will have its share of extremist down in the comments. Druskeet (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately (for you), we follow the sources. Not opinions. Zaathras (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Wow. I really wish you read my entire post, because that statement says alot and I now have a completely different understanding of Wikipedia. There's alot to unpack from such a short statement but Im going to start with the important part: "..we follow sources, not opinions." Do you really not see what you just said??? Claiming LoTT is far right IS AN OPINION. So any sorces you follow or quote from that say LoTT is far right, are also just giving there opinions. The other part, and the most alarming part that proves you're not actually looking for neutrality: "Unfortunately (for you)..." So even though there is no direct insult, the "for you" part was meant to be insulting. You're insinuating that I dont hold the correct view point and therefore anything I say should be dismissed. Which makes me think you didn't even read what I wrote. Nothing I wrote was insulting or derogatory towards anyone so the only reason to insult me would be that you found my idea insulting. If my idea was just wrong you'd simply explain why I was wrong but that's not what happened. My idea was offensive to you so you felt like you could be offensive to me, and that just proves you dont care about neutrality. A truly neutral sorce reports only fact, and all facts, even if those facts are not in alignment with their own personal views. I realize what said was lengthy, but I felt everything I said, needed to be said in order to show that I was coming from a neutral point of view as well as show why terms like "far right" and "radical left" are inflammatory and definitely dont reflect neutrality. Druskeet (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Neutrality does not mean "no opinions" on wikipedia. it does not mean "take the middle ground" or "don't adopt any point of view". it actually means accurately reflecting the view of the consensus of our best available sources. See also: WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RSUW. This is a common misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC) And in case you didn't read that. Terms like "Far Right" and "Radical Left" are opinions that set the reader in a specific frame of mind. I am against both terms. They should not be used to describe a person or institution (unless said person or institution specifically claims the label) on site that most people view as FACT only. Most people believe this site is like the encyclopedia (it used to be) in that no opinions are givin and therefore anything they read can be taken as fact. Druskeet (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Well then the word neutrality shouldnt be used. Because again, up until now, I like most other people assuming Wikipedia to be a neutral sorce of information where you could get the facts. Druskeet (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC) You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what neutrality means in the context of Wikipedia. And for the record, the argument that LoTT is "just reposting" with no commentary is tired and debunked. --Pokelova (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Colorado

collapse as mostly unproductive wall of text

LOTT posted nothing directly about the Colorado night club. It's a complete stretch to even include an article about it. Why not include the same for anyone/everyone who has said something against drag queen shows? 2600:1700:F21:9570:3CF3:F0DF:7311:22E2 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Articles on Wikipedia are constructed based on what credible sources say about a given subject. Several reliable sources have mentioned LOTT in their coverage of the Colorado Springs night club shooting as context for all the violence that has been committed this year against LGBT venues and drag queens, and at least two -- the Washington Post and The Advocate -- have noticed she incited against drag queens in the same state just hours after the massacre took place. If it appears in reliable sources, it can appear on Wikipedia. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC) In addition, not everyone anywhere has the power to incite harassment and violence in real life with mere posts on social media. Several reliable sources, however, have noted that Chaya Raichik possesses just that power. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I agree that it is a stretch and kind of a non sequitur. I do not personally see any incitement. But as @Peleio Aquiles mentioned, several news outlets have brought this up and it is well cited. Amarg9494 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC) You used "incite" in both justifications for the inclusion of referencing articles. Could you please cite the specific "incitement" of harassment and/or violence from LoTT? 2600:1700:1CD0:D9C0:8C3F:AC03:2FCB:E6D3 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Shouldn't you read the entry before criticizing its contents? The entry lists many incidents where her posts against LGBTQ venues and drag performers were followed by harassment and violence from right-wingers. Start here. Also in the entry now are the words of a former Dept. of Homeland Security official Juliette Kayeem claiming a causal link between Libs of TikTok's posts and right-wing violence. You're free to dislike all these facts if you want to. But they have been voiced in reliable sources, and so belong in the entry. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I disagree here. I think we can take it as given that there are people in the media and government who dislike Libs of TikTok (and similar activists) and will instinctively mention them any time there's anti-gay violence in the United States, regardless of any actual linkage. Does that mean this article will need to have a section for every well-publicized anti-gay attack (assuming this was indeed a bias crime) from now on? It seems pointless, and perhaps WP:NOTSCANDAL applies. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I would respectfully disagree here. I have not had the chance to actually examine the sources, so I am not necessarily arguing for inclusion here, but as a general principle, if reliable sources continue linking LoTT to attacks in a proportion that makes such a linkage due, then we need to include them. I would however agree that perhaps the first few days after such a tragedy is probably not enough perspective for a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Interesting, we don't have any sources which refer to LoTT as activism, we do have a number which call it a hate site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC) "Activist" is my term, yes. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) BLP prohibits you from using your own term to describe a living person. All characterizations whether in the article or on the talk page must be directly supported by a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC) That's quite an opinion to hold. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Not my opinion, see WP:BLP. You can no more call someone an activist without a WP:RS then you can call them a farmer, billionaire, rapist, or terrorist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) WP:BLP prohibits "harmful" or "titillating" claims. Would you say "activist" (or "farmer", for that matter) falls into either of those categories? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) With all due respect, I would say the quotes about harm and titillation are more normative claims than statements of policy: they explain reasoning. I would say the policy itself is All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Now, there may well be instances where the appellation "activist" is noncontroversial, but in this particular instance I should think it falls under that broad category. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC) That's for articles, of course, not talk pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Touché! I came away with the idea that we were discussing the article; I agree that use of the term on the talk page is unproblematic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC) BLP applies to talk pages. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC) False. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC) HEB, with all due respect, I would suggest this is not worth the fight: if even relatively neutral descriptors required citations on talk pages, discussion would be so unwieldy as to be impossible. I agree with you in general, but I don't think is the sort of BLP violation that demands action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC) The context is that Korny is an absolute stickler for BLP (including on talk pages) when it furthers their argument... To now pretend like they think that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages is either trolling or amnesia. I agree though that its not worth arguing over outside of that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I admit I'm a stickler for BLP in articles (everyone should be), but on talk pages? I have no idea what you're talking about. (And now it sounds like you're saying you brought us down this rabbit hole just to make a point, but that's another story.) Korny O'Near (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) You should refrain from making accusations of bad faith about other editors. Your past comments, apparent inconsistency in the way you select your arguments, and fitness to contribute to this entry, are legitimate topics for other editors, especially as the administration board has once considered warning you over the support you've given for extremism and conspiracy theories in this Talk Page. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) With all due respect to everyone involved, I suggest we wrap this up and continue discussing article content. Where are we on the Colorado shooting section? I am of the mind that it definitely needs to be included, though I go back and forth on whether it should be trimmed a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I agree with going back to the actual discussion. There should probably be a new section for it; this one has gotten a little cringeworthy to read through. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) A reminder that Korny has voiced support for some the hate rhetoric and conspiracy theories that Chaya Raichik has spread, such as the idea that the Trevor Project is a covert grooming operation. Wasn't there a discussion in the administration board to topic-ban him from LGBT entries a little while ago? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC) This feels like harassment, but I'll let others judge. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Seems relevant, doesn't appear to be wp:harassment as we define it here on wikipedia at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Colorado Springs shooter is "non-binary"

another wall of text Dronebogus (talk)

The latest news about the Colorado Springs gay nightclub shooting is that the shooter now claims to be non-binary. Is this proof that Libs of TikTok is not somehow responsible for the shooting? No - the shooter could be trolling, or maybe he's sincere but still a fan of Libs of TikTok, and was motivated as a result to specifically target gay people. And no matter what the real situation is, the fact remains that the previous speculation by The Independent, PinkNews, Juliette Kayyem etc. was published in reliable sources, and will forever be notable by Wikipedia standards, even if it turns out to be completely false. However, I think this news underscores the pointlessness of simply arguing that anything published in reliable sources belongs in Wikipedia. We exercise editorial discretion, and that includes avoiding speculation that appears to be baseless, even if supposedly reliable journalists state it. I think WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here, as does a general sense that we should wait for the real facts to emerge. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Yes I would point to WP:RSBREAKING, that we should let the dust settle on this and wait for more comprehensive and authoritative independent sources (e.g. Reuters, NPR, BBC) to weigh in. I think we should, for now, refer to the shooter as "they/them" or whatever, but agree that we should not take this as reason to exclude the content from this article. It has a brief proportionality by WP:DUE standards, and thus deserves a brief mention imo. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The entry does not address the identity, or even the motivation, of the shooter in any way, though. There's no space to refer to his supposedly "non-binary" identity, and Wikipedia shouldn't jump to conclusions based just on a very timely move by the shooter's defense attorney. For what is worth, an image is circulating on Twitter showing a rainbow flag being set on fire on what looks like the shooter's Instagram account. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The section on the Colorado shooting is as well cited as any in the entry. I find it unlikely that Wikipedia is going to change its notability rules entirely on account of the reputation of some extremist troll on Twitter. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It's not a question of notability, it's a question of... encyclopedia-worthiness, I suppose. Not every statement published in reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The increasingly grotesque reaction of the right-wing to the shooting has become newsworthy on its own, though. Regardless of what motivated the shooter, Chaya Raichik chose to target drag queens in Colorado only hours after the shooting. As media savvy as she is, it's unlikely that she didn't know what she was doing, and news media could only take notice. This is something the perception of which won't change regardless of what the shooter and his attorneys come to say in the next days, because this is something Raichik, not the shooter, did. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) I reverted your edit as it distorts what reliable sources have said on the subject. None have claimed, or speculated, that Chaya Raichik inspired the shooter. The Independent merely noticed that the kind of event the shooter attacked is one frequently targeted by Raichik on social media. And the Washington Post, the NBC News, Pink News, and the Southern Poverty Law Center observed that Raichik decided to target drag queens in the same state as the shooting only hours after the shooting. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It's true that many of the sources criticized LoTT for criticizing drag queens elsewhere in Colorado (apparently entire states can be off-limits - I didn't know that); but the wording in the text you reverted to is quite ambiguous, switching back and forth between accusations of incitement to violence and accusations of insensitivity, which are very different things (or rather, implied accusations of each - I don't know that any of the sources explicitly say that Libs of TikTok is guilty of either one). It's fine to mention both things, but to conflate the two is confusing - and to have a large amount of text on either one seems wholly unjustified. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Personally, I think her entire crusade against drag queens, not only those in Colorado, is comic. She thinks men should be simply forbidden to wear dresses, a position of such extreme authoritarianism that, as far as I know, it surpasses anything that had been imposed even by churches in less enlightened times. But Colorado drag queens were feeling more vulnerable than others, for obvious reasons. Combined with the increasingly emboldened far-right attacks on the bar -- Raichik's supporter Tim Pool, for example, is accusing Club Q staffers and patrons of being groomers and pedophiles -- the media's attention to this corner of the internet is natural, especially since Raichik's postings have been linked to bomb threats before. Anyway, I don't see the point of holding this conversation. Since you're not saying which part of the text you tried to remove is ambiguous, it doesn't feel like you want to be helped, only to grieve. But we can do nothing about how the media covers her. Isn't there anyone in your life you can talk about how upset you are with the news treatment of her? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) This is unbelievably rude, and I'm sure you're violating some rules here. That said, let me ignore all the irrelevant parts of what you wrote, and focus on the one relevant part: "which part of the text you tried to remove is ambiguous". Let's look at the current text: there's an implied accusation of incitement of violence (The Independent noted...), followed by two sentences that are accusations of insensitivity, followed by a sentence about an earlier interview with Juliette Kayyem that accuses LoTT of incitement of violence (AKA "stochastic terrorism", even though Kayyem never uses that term to refer to LoTT). The paragraph just flits back and forth, with neither thematic nor chronological order. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) It wasn't my intention to be rude; but you seemed to be raising issues -- the the media coverage of Raichik -- that Wikipedia cannot address. Wikipedia is built on the basis of what views are prominent in reliable media; I don't think we can decide to give a sweeter treatment than the sources are affording her. And The Independent is not claiming Raichik had singled out this bar specifically, only that she has a long pattern of posting about drag events which are then stormed by extremists. The RS's are making different observations about Raichik's conduct because her actions in this regard have been many. That's not complicated. She passed months putting drag queens on the crosshairs of Proud Boys and similar groups, which is what The Independent observed. And, on the day of the Colorado Springs massacre (probably after The Independent ran the article about her), she chose to rub salt on the wound by tweeting about drag queens in a neighboring city to the massacre! Really, who's to blame about how much the RS have to say on her connection to this case? She is giving reason for media to keep writing about her -- and it's probably intentional. As an apparent supporter of her work, given the extremist views you seem to share with her, you should message her to suggest she follow a different social media strategy if you're worried on her behalf. I don't think the media coverage of her will, or should, change otherwise! Regardless, none of this is the problem of the editors here. I don't have the transcript to Kayyeem's interview with The Advocate, so neither I nor (I think) you know for sure who employed the stochastic terrorism term. We know that both articles about the interview use the term, which is all that the entry is saying. I'll be searching through The Advocate's archive to see if there are more references to the interview or even a transcript, and if anything relevant emerges, I'll be updating the section. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Again, please stop being rude. Anyway, contrary to what you wrote, we have every right to decide which material gets added to this article and which does not. (Otherwise, every article would be millions of words long.) That certainly applies for baseless innuendo that Libs of TikTok caused the deaths of five people - an implication that seems increasingly unlikely, and probably deserves no more than a sentence at best. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Editors aren't a hive mind. Even if we had the autonomy to decide which reliable sources are reliable, and which reliable sources are not reliable (itself a nonsensical hope), it's extremely unlikely that editors would agree on how the final ranking of reliable sources would look like. The only hope we have of achieving consensus, I think, is following Wikipedia's guidebook. Mind you, some of the passages to which you're objecting are sourced to media outlets that would top any such ranking. You don't get much more mainstream and prominent than the Washington Post, for example -- and I'm loath to agree with many aspects of the WaPo's editorial line. Further, I don't think I was being rude to you, especially in the last post, unless you think it's rude to be reminded of views you elected to voice on this Talk Page. Finally, as I said, I conducted a quick search of The Advocate's mentions of Jueliette Kayyem, and I didn't find a transcript. I did find the following passage in a third article: There is a direct link between accounts like Raichik's Libs of TikTok and angry and potentially violent men showing up at drag queen story hours and Pride events, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Barrack Obama and expert in counter-terrorism, said in August. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to understand our role as Wikipedia editors. A fact could appear in every reliable source, and be unimpeachably true, and we could still decide that it's too trivial, gossipy, etc. to include. In this case, of course, it's not a fact at all, but rather a half-stated, evidence-free piece of innuendo, that this Twitter account indirectly led to murder. There's no obligation to include it at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The Washington Post, NBC News, and so on, don't often write gossip, especially in their news columns. And Raichik's choice to attack drag queens in Colorado on the same of the Colorado LGBTQ shooting is not trivial or gossipy. It does not pertain to her personal life, but to her activities as a public and very influential account. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC) If every fact written in the news sections of the Washington Post, NBC, etc. were worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, this website would be quite a bit bigger. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC) I disagree. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) So you think every statement in every article ever published by every reliable source belongs in Wikipedia? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Please do not attribute points of view to others which you know they do not hold in order to make a point. That is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation from editors about Colorado shooting

Since Korny won't let me edit his tendentious title, I'll leave this here as proof that he was likely spreading disinformation when he excitedly came to announce that the shooter is "non-binary":

Xavier Kraus, a neighbor of the accused shooter, said he and his girlfriend lived across the hall from Aldrich and their mother until September. Kraus said they mostly played video games together, often in Aldrich’s apartment.

Aldrich would occasionally express hateful attitudes toward people, Kraus recalled.

Kraus said he specifically remembered one time “Aldrich vocalized verbally” that they “did not like or slash hated the gays. Using a derogatory term for them.” He added that many other “outbursts” were “racial.”

Aldrich was “not someone I would have around my gay friends,” Kraus said. He said the alleged shooter never mentioned they were non-binary.

(Source) Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I put "non-binary" in quotes, because I was quoting the shooter. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Has nobody here anything better to do than edit-war over a talk page section heading? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

How is LoTT primarily disinformation when all of its content are reposts of other people's videos? Is the "disinformation" you're talking about simply LoTT's summarization of the video via opinion/editorialization? If that's the case, most news websites are guilty of the same thing, as headlines are often exaggerated/misleading to paint a narrative. LoTT is not creating issues out of thin air; at most they are exaggerated summaries of a video that leads to LoTT drawing some conclusion based off opinion. It is by no means a news social media account, another reason why calling it a disinformation account is a stretch. And as said above, even if LoTT is guilty of disinformation, is there genuinely enough for it to be seen as an account that spreads *primarily* disinformation (as it is in the very first sentence of the opening)? 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

all of its content are reposts of other people's videos this is blatantly false. Agree that describing the account as disinformation may be a bit much, though I would still mention it in the first paragraph (something along the lines of "the account has been known to spread disinformation"). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Then the rest of its content would be essentially be political/cultural commentary, correct? 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That Chaya Raichik is a distributor of disinformation is more than adequately sourced in the article. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we have excellent sourcing attesting that she has spread disinformation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not she has spread disinformation is not the point. The point is how *much* disinformation has to be spread in order for the account be deemed as a disinformation account; thus putting that in the very first sentence of the article? If it just takes one instance, that could apply to virtually every social media account. There has to be proof her account is used to *frequently* spread disinformation, and based on her tweets, they primarily seem to be sharing of TikToks with her opinionized summary of the video. And you would also need to distinguish a wrong opinion from disinformation; perhaps this article (and many others) conflates the two. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really actually. Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is. What is their criteria for calling it so? These articles are often partisan which do sway credibility. There is no basis as to how frequent "disinformation" has to be in order for the account to be considered a disinformation account. If I tweeted 2 + 2 = 5 on twitter does that make my account a disinformation account?

Also saying LoTT reposts content with "hostile/derogatory commentary" is simply hyperbolic. Most of the time the commentary is more or less neutral. Take this tweet for instance, nothing hostile here. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1598034705164926976?s=20&t=js3vQTejA9Hyh49WhqtFhQ

That sentence in the article makes it seem as if every tweet is of that nature, when in reality, yes while you can see some partisanship/opinionated view from the tweets, they are not outright "inflammatory". As I've reiterated, a simple opinion of others' content is not inherently derogatory. There is little to no actual commentary made by LoTT, instead there are mostly summaries with, again, slight partisanship after some analyzation. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Just because articles say LoTT is a disinformation account doesn't mean it automatically is." If the sources are reliable, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does mean that. Everything else you're saying is just your own opinion, which is irrelevant. We follow the sources, period. --Pokelova (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But that's part of the problem. The sources are "reliable" as long as they don't lean right. If they lean left (such as Media Matters) more often than not Wikipedia will find them a-OK to use. Meanwhile sites like the New York Post & Daily Wire are seen as far-right disinformation sources. There is no objective "reliability" when it comes to politics as it is not math or science. Maybe one day NYP & DW will be seen as reliable enough to be used on this website, and then these sources can be used to counter the narrative that LoTT is some hate machine only used to spread false information (rather than opinion). 24.156.179.25 (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)