Talk:Libs of TikTok

If LOTT is categorized as Far-Right why aren't the people they re-post categorized as Far-Left?

This is a conversation Wiki Jannies did not like hearing, so they've put this banner up in order to hide it from you. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

LOTT does not merely repost random people. Only people who take a demonstrably far left position on issues like Gender Theory and various other issues. Is merely disagreeing with these positions enough to be called Far-Right but not the other way around? Borges123xyz (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Because "far-left" is more pejorative than genuine political identity. Zaathras (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC) But Far-Right is OK? Borges123xyz (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC) If you can provide reliable sources that use your "far left" formulation, then it would be a more persuasive position. Maybe you can! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Why is Far-Right OK but not Far-Left? Borges123xyz (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Why not just call it "conservative" Borges123xyz (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Becaues sources call it far-right. — Czello 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Again, that would be because of the reliable sources. We should be using their terms. Maybe you're correct and we're getting this wrong, but you'd have to show us that in the sources, not just come here with ipse dixit. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Here are two sources calling the people LOTT re-posts as Far Left... https://nypost.com/2023/01/03/libs-of-tiktok-creator-chaya-raichik-is-dropping-her-anonymity/ https://radio.foxnews.com/2023/01/06/evening-edition-why-the-libs-of-tiktok-founder-is-finally-revealing-her-identity/ Borges123xyz (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC) This is what I mean, but unfortunately, neither of those are reliable sources per the list at WP:RSP. The Post is generally unreliable, and Fox is unreliable when it comes to politics. But you have the correct mode of argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC) The NY Post is a tabloid, and not usable in the Wikipedia. Neither is the talking head punditry portion of Fox News. Time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Unironically yes. This is something that has been discussed at length on our article on far-left politics. Far-right politics is a common term and area of study in academia; the term "far-left", on the other hand, isn't really used much (there is basically one researcher who focuses on it and much of his work is discussing why it isn't used while trying to define it.) There are researchers who study radical anarchist movements, or radical communist movements, or radical leftists of all stripes, but they don't generally lump them together. And that sort of shows the reason - it wouldn't be as useful to lump them together. The "far-right" is a reasonably unified, well-defined realm of political thought focused on extremist defenses of established, traditional hierarchies; there's different streams within it, but they share basic similarities that make them useful as an area of study. The same isn't true for "far left"; a label that lumps together anti-state radical anarchists with radical Marxist-Leninist Communists who want a centralized state controlling everything is simply less academically useful, even before you get to people throwing in anyone who feels strongly about racial justice or trans rights or whatever else in some manner that puts them far outside the mainstream. "Anyone who radically opposes existing hierarchies in any way" isn't really a meaningful or useful label. Hence, while it comes up sometimes, "far-left" only rarely sees non-pejorative usage. Also, to circle back to your original point, it should be obvious that we can't just trust the personal opinions of the article's subject in terms of labeling her targets; she is a random Twitter account, not a reliable source. RSes don't generally describe her targets as far-left or radical in any way. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Hopefully I don't get in trouble for this, but out of all instances of deceitful and/or stupid arguments LoTT's defenders have pushed on this Talk Page, Borges' takes the cake. Drag queens are not inherently left-wing, yet Chaya Raichik posts footage (including defrauded footage) of drag performances anyway. Chaya Raichik has also put on a blast gay teachers merely for being out to their class and insisted that they be fired. Hers is a far-right position; being an out gay teachers, on the other hand, has nothing to do with being far-left. And, importantly, while we have plenty of sources now describing Chaya Raichik as far-right, no reliable source calls her targets as a whole far-left. That's not how logic works. That Nazis are far-right doesn't make Jews far-left. Hopefully it's not against Wikipedia's rules to call out blatant sophistry the way it deserves. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC) ^^ This, and not what's above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bari Weiss's portrayal of Libs of TikTok

In reference to this Slate article, I replaced the sentence Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism with the sentence Urquhart further argued that Libs of TikTok should have been banned permanently, as it "has repeatedly been a driver of real-world violence". - on the grounds that this is an article about Libs of TikTok, not about Bari Weiss and her reporting skills. Peleio Aquiles then reverted it - explaining that "That excerpt barely counts as a commentary on Bari Weiss". Which is an odd thing to say. Any thoughts on this? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this in context, immediately before the sentence attributed to Urquhart, we have a long sentence on Weiss' coverage of Libs of TikTok in the Twitter Files. Urquhart was making a comment on that coverage by Weiss, stating that in her coverage Weiss dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism. Given that Libs of TikTok has attracted substantial allegations of engaging in stochastic terrorism, and that Weiss' selective coverage was conflating that with conservative opinion, on balance it does seem to me like an important thing to include. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what sentence you're talking about - the sentence immediately preceding this one is another one about Urquhart. But if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorism, then the section should just say that - instead of giving us one journalist's views about another journalist. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, there's three sentences involved here, with a reference to Al Jazeera in the middle. Sentence 1 and 2 reads On December 9, journalist Bari Weiss, as part of an analysis of internal Twitter communications in the pre-Musk era dubbed the "Twitter Files", revealed that Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, in addition to the known suspensions. Musk later stated that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views. Then the Al Jazeera sentence. And then sentence 3 which currently reads Conversely, Evan Urquhart of Slate argued that Weiss' own publishing revealed that Libs of TikTok was receiving preferential treatment, with moderators directed not to take any action against the account and to instead elevate issues to higher management. Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.

Sentence 1 is about Weiss' content in the Twitter Files. Sentence 2 is a brief summary of a statement by Musk on Twitter's content guidelines. Sentence 3 is Urquhart's response to Weiss' content, that was summarised in sentence 1. As for if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorism that's a mischaracterisation of what Urquhart said. Urquhart was commenting on the shortfalls of Weiss' coverage, and the "dangerous conflation of conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism". It is required to balance out the otherwise uncritical summary of Weiss' commentary in the Twitter Files about Libs of TikTok, as it is a fair criticism of what Weiss had wrote. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing - there's Weiss' content (like the shadow bannings, which are presumably not in doubt), and then there's Weiss' commentary around that content. I have no idea what her commentary was, and neither will the average reader - this article doesn't say, and I haven't read the original. All we're left with is that Evan Urquhart of Slate feels it was a dangerous conflation. Why that's important to know, I don't know. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That Libs of TikTok was subject to a shadow ban is in dispute. As Urquhart stated, with direct reference to Weiss' original tweets, the Libs of TikTok account was flagged with a "do not take action on user without consulting [senior management]" message. It may be that this is because senior management wanted to be ultimately responsible for any and all actions taken against the account, or it may also be that senior management made this flag to prevent action being taken against the account. Weiss' coverage does not go into detail about which was the case, with Urquhart stating This preferential treatment of Libs of TikTok, while not acknowledged by Weiss, is concerning. It implies that instead of placing the repeatedly banned account on a short leash, in light of its connection to real-world violent acts, ordinary moderators were unable to ensure that Libs of TikTok followed Twitter’s policies at all. (emphasis fro original text) That preferential treatment is covered in the first half of the sentence.

As for the portrayal of Libs of TikTok by Weiss, looking at our content on enwiki we assert that (attributed to Weiss) Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, and (attributed to Musk) that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views. That is an conflation by both that Libs of TikTok is simply providing right-wing view points. Urquhart's commentary is that this conflation is a dangerous one, and I would agree with that, because it minimises the harm that Libs of TikTok and its followers preform. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. Weiss' statement that Libs of TikTok was shadow-banned may be true or false, but in neither case is it conflating anything (terrorists can be shadow-banned too). Perhaps Musk was conflating something, but Urquhart didn't comment on that. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That argument says a lot more about what the author thinks about LoTT's impact on the political climate than what they think about Bari Weiss as a professional. You're grasping at straws because there's something in that argument that you dislike and want removed, and I'm convinced that it's the reference to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If the point is to convey that Urquhart thinks that LoTT commits stochastic terrorism, why not just say that, instead of this weird indirect thing? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying from PinkNews

CJ-Moki made this change in order to be "Framing the supporters' claims in accordance with the PinkNews source"; the new text reads:

While fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, "the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared."

That's based on this sentence from PinkNews:

While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.

Seems pretty straightforward - PinkNews is a reliable source, and that's how they state it, so it's good enough for us, right? No - this sentence is biased trash, and we'd do best to ignore it. Here's what's wrong with it:

• Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful.
• Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people.
• The sentence itself is poorly constructed - it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters say, but then doesn't contradict it at all.
• Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim" (see WP:CLAIM).

What about PinkNews being a reliable source? Well, according to WP:RSP, There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. (Emphasis in original.) Probably caution is necessary because PinkNews sometimes produces wildly irresponsible statements like the above. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a wild overreaction and misinterpretation of a generalized statement. The sentence does not say "all", and reasonable people would not interpret it as such. --Pokelova (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What percentage of followers do you think it means, then? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This particular detail is immaterial. We have to follow the reliable secondary sources instead of using original research. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: The first three bullet points here seem to be WP:OR, which is prohibited on WP. The PinkNews source casts doubt on the supporters' argument, so using the word "claim" is reasonable. We have to follow what the reliable secondary sources such as PinkNews say about the subject. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying caution should not be used, contrary to what WP:RSP says. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read the past RSN discussions on PinkNews you'll see that the additional considerations apply bit is primarily towards PinkNews' past content with regards to the sexuality of BLP subjects. It does not apply to their regular reporting, where only the regular RS considerations apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If that were the case, it could have been stated much more clearly. I'm going by a very straightforward reading of the PinkNews description. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifically it comes from this discussion in 2020 over Anne Frank's sexuality. The two subsequent discussions in 2021 and 2022 found it to be generally reliable. And in fairness, the context surrounding the sexuality stuff is mentioned in the second sentence of its RSP entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no point going into this minutiae - WP:RSP says what it says. If you think its current wording is misleading, you should take it up over there. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that any attempt to discuss PinkNews at RSN is akin to attempting to discuss Fox News, in that it brings a lot of heat but no real light, I'm of the opinion for now that it's better to address these misconceptions at a local talk page level. If/when someone brings it back to RSN, I will advocate for change at that time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Up to you - but until then, we have to go by what the thing actually says, "misconception" or no. Once the guideline is there, it doesn't really matter what the discussion was that led up to it. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful. All "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? No. The majority being so, yes. There is a reason why those people follow and interact with the account, because of the anti-LGBTQ+ content that it continually puts out.
• Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people. All? No. A substantial number? Yes. Why do you think Libs of TikTok has a reputation for encouraging and engaging in stochastic terrorism?
• it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters say Yes, what Libs of TikTok's supporters say and think with regards to "sex and gender ideology" is pretty laughably wrong.
• Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim" I'm somewhat of the opinion that this is one of the few cases where we could say "claim". There is no evidence that there is any sort of "LGBT+ ideology" or any of the other dangerous claims that Libs of TikTok publishes daily. Given that this is a significantly large number group that WP:BLPGROUP would apply such that BLP would not, I could also be convinced to change that to "believe".

Otherwise I agree with Pokelova, this seems like a pretty big overreaction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me. The views of LoTT supporters with regards to "sex and gender ideology" are not the issue here - it's their views with regards to what LoTT publishes; and a simple perusal of [link removed per WP:PROBLEMLINKS] seems to show that they're right; the vast majority of the content is simply straightforward reposting of publicly-available content. In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in there, of the kind you feel Libs of TikTok "publishes daily". Korny O'Near (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me.

This is entering WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE territory. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain that? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Which parts are OR?

• That Libs of TikTok's followers are anti-LGBTQ+? Well that can be sourced to The Advocate and the same PinkNews article that prompted this discussion.
• That Libs of TikTok engage in stochastic terrorism? Cause that's the words of The Advocate and Evan Urquhart.
• That Libs of TikTok's supporters believe in "sex and gender ideology", a demonstrably false subject? Well Sonia Corrêa wrote about this conspiracy theory for LSE back in 2017

In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in there Challenging me to engage in OR, when you've already accused me of engaging in OR is certainly a bold strategy Cotton. However it doesn't matter what my own original research turns up, it only matters what the research of reliable sources have turned up, and there is a consensus amongst those sources that LoTT publishes misleading content, dangerous claims, and engages in stochastic terrorism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You obviously were engaging in original research, like with your assertion that the majority (i.e., between 50 and 100%) of Libs of TikTok followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ. As I said, though, that's fine on a talk page. I don't know why you brought up stochastic terrorism, or really the other stuff - I feel like you've been sidetracked here. Ultimately this is a discussion about a simple sentence, about the views of LoTT's proponents, that got made overly complicated and weird. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the whole conversation drifted a bit--but I also think it's clear there's no consensus for a change to the sentence at issue, Korny. While you have an argument, I disagree with it as well. I might respectfully suggest that perhaps you could seek other opinions at WP:RSN or the like if you think it warranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you don't think there's anything weird about that sentence? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it could certainly be reworded, I am not sure I love it stylistically, but I don't have the substantive or sourcing concerns you raise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Inspired by Satanism"

The article right now states, Raichik claimed that one of the drag queens booked for the brunch was "inspired by Satanism", although the individual she mentioned in her post was not invited to perform at the brunch. Sounds like a pretty crazy claim! But this is either an incorrect or at least very misleading paraphrasis of the original source, which states, Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism”, although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.. Which is still somewhat awkwardly worded; looking at the [link removed per WP:PROBLEMLINKS] makes it clear what's going on: the drag queen's own bio states that he/they are "inspired by Satanism"; the controversy is just whether this particular drag queen was at that 2022 drag brunch. I tried to make this part, and some of the other wording around this event, clearer, but Zaathras reverted it. So here we are. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, you camping out on this article, criticizing and reverting numerous editors is getting rather tiring to deal with. This has been a drip-drip-drip of nitpicking minutiae, it has been months. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Korny has been repeatedly asked to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I don't think he's listening. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I made you tired. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Linking to Libs of TikTok on Twitter is probably against WP:PROBLEMLINKS. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine; anyone can see the URL of the original tweet here, if they're curious. The point is that "inspired by Satanism" is the drag queen's description, not Libs of TikTok's. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)