It isn't even the tactics of the left being used. Catherine McConnell was a senior policy advisor at the Dept. of Ed., which is public information. The financial statement, OGE Form 278e, is also legally required to be public under the Ethics in Government Act. Nothing in Laura Loomer's post counts as doxxing. Laura was simply highlighting the judge's conflict of interest. Leave it to progressives to deflect through lies by omission.
Both comments miss the fundamental point about what modern doxxing has evolved into. Yes, certain info may be technically public, but there’s a massive difference between information being legally accessible and it being strategically amplified to incite harassment.
The Ethics in Government Act wasn’t written for an age of algorithmic amplification and targeted intimidation.
When public info is pushed into the spotlight with the intent to intimidate or silence, it stops being about “transparency.” It becomes a weapon.
This article isn’t about left vs. right—it’s about how AI systems and influence networks weaponize visibility to punish dissent.
Who’s accountable when “just sharing public info” leads to harm?
Claiming innocence while knowing the consequences is exactly the tactic I broke down.
The left going crazy when the right uses their tactics. Bunch of hypocrites.
It isn't even the tactics of the left being used. Catherine McConnell was a senior policy advisor at the Dept. of Ed., which is public information. The financial statement, OGE Form 278e, is also legally required to be public under the Ethics in Government Act. Nothing in Laura Loomer's post counts as doxxing. Laura was simply highlighting the judge's conflict of interest. Leave it to progressives to deflect through lies by omission.
Both comments miss the fundamental point about what modern doxxing has evolved into. Yes, certain info may be technically public, but there’s a massive difference between information being legally accessible and it being strategically amplified to incite harassment.
The Ethics in Government Act wasn’t written for an age of algorithmic amplification and targeted intimidation.
When public info is pushed into the spotlight with the intent to intimidate or silence, it stops being about “transparency.” It becomes a weapon.
This article isn’t about left vs. right—it’s about how AI systems and influence networks weaponize visibility to punish dissent.
Who’s accountable when “just sharing public info” leads to harm?
Claiming innocence while knowing the consequences is exactly the tactic I broke down.