reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I support Palestine and I don't consider my actions a crime. I vandalized a Starbucks and didn't hide my face because I believe I'm fighting for justice and peace. The next morning, the police were called on me by a Jewish boy and his girlfriend who questioned my actions. I didn't know what would happen, but now, almost 24 hours later, I find myself doxxed online. I'm not sure what that means, but I'll have to look it up soon.

Every country struggles to define the boundaries of online speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment complicates this, requiring exceptions to free speech, such as falsely yelling fire in a theater. Anonymity online can exacerbate the problem. Over time, with technologies like deepfakes, people will likely prefer online environments where users are truly identified and connected to real-world identities they trust, rather than allowing anonymous individuals to say anything. Systems will be needed to verify the source and creator of online content.

We propose linking digital identities like France Identité or La Poste's digital identity to Facebook accounts. This would confirm that there is a real person behind the account and provide an encrypted code that only authorities can decipher in specific cases of illegal activity. The idea is to know who you are, even if you use a pseudonym and a cat photo on Facebook. Anonymity is not the goal; instead, we want to associate your account with a digital identity to ensure you are not anonymous in the end.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Hi. My name is Nancy Dee, and I was fired on Friday for saying that I was having a hard time finding empathy for Charlie Kirk. Apparently, I was doxxed by a convicted and pardon? January 6 there on Twitter. And so my name and my company's name was put out there, and then my company was flooded with calls for my termination. And this is day one of unemp

If social media platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok don't moderate and monitor content, we lose total control. This loss of control extends beyond social and psychological effects, leading to real harm.

- Under Victoria's civil anti vilification scheme, starts in 2026, the speaker of a vilifying statement generally needs to be identifiable to be held to a to to be held accountable. We recognize that this could protect cowards who hide behind anonymous profiles to spread hate and stoke fear. That's why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and anonymous users to account and will, as point, a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.

On one of the first days this show aired about the 50 states, a delegation to Israel visited, with people from state and local governments going to Israel, reportedly “humping the wall,” “licking the wall,” listening to speeches from Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli dignitaries, and being given instructions on how they would serve. The discussion then shifts to free speech and second amendment rights, setting the stage for the rest of the show. Jonathan Cagle, an American journalist known on X (formerly Twitter) with accounts such as decent backup, geez, decent JC, has been arrested. He is appearing today in a federal court, facing charges of cyberstalking. The report attributes the arrest to a group of “psychotic Zionists” who have been mass reporting him, attempting to have him kicked off the Internet and from various platforms, filing unpublished and videoed reports, and involving law enforcement. They have accused him of harassing, threatening, and stalking them, and now he faces federal charges. A central question raised is how many reports it takes to get arrested and jailed, and whether a “magic number” exists. The conversation notes X’s new program that flags accounts, suppresses content, and reduces reach, assigning scores (80%, 90%), thereby “snuffing out” visibility. The discussion asks if a coordinated online group can push someone into being arrested, just by accusing them of cyberstalking or other offenses. There is a GoFundMe-style fundraising page linked to Jonathan Cagle’s mother, Lisa Cagle, who states: “I’m Lisa Cagle, and my son needs help with a legal matter as he is a patriot fighting for America's future. He has a platform on X and is joined by so many that share the same passion for the great USA. Any donation is greatly appreciated. We’re raising legal funds to help cover the legal defense of a man facing serious federal charges that raise important questions about free speech, due process, and the proper limits of government power. The case is complex, high stakes, and emotionally taxing, not just for him, but for his family and loved ones. Federal cases move quickly, require specialized legal expertise, and are extremely expensive to defend properly. Without strong representation, the system can overwhelm even those who believe deeply in their innocence. This fundraiser is not about relitigating the case online or attacking anyone involved. It’s about ensuring that every person, regardless of public opinion, has access to a vigorous, competent defense as guaranteed by the constitution. Legal fees for federal defenses can include, and there’s this list here, and I mean, it’s every step of the way. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps ensure that this case is decided in a courtroom based on facts and law, not by financial imbalance or fear. If you’re unable to donate, sharing this page is also deeply appreciated.” The narrative notes that federal court proceedings are challenging due to the government’s resources, and it references the J6 situation, where participants were uprooted from their homes and faced severe sentences, implying a concern about intimidation by federal power. The discussion promises to follow the case and provide updates on the court hearing and further information about what is happening, given the large online attack from accounts on X that have targeted Jonathan to destroy him, making it difficult to discern the facts. The overarching theme is concern over free speech, due process, and the proper limits of government power in the face of online amplification and organized reporting campaigns.

Speaker 0 admits to sending emails to people's employers. Speaker 1 defends Speaker 0's actions, stating that they are standing up for the disenfranchised and bullied in their community. Speaker 0 agrees that if someone wanted to show their employer their online posts, it would be acceptable. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 is okay with someone getting fired as a consequence, to which Speaker 0 responds that sometimes it is justified.

Every country's struggling to find that boundary. The US is is a tough one because, you know, we have the notion of the first amendment. And so what what are the exceptions, you know, like yelling fire in the theater, you know, and because you're anonymous online, you know, it it it can be worse. I do think over time, you know, with things like deepfakes, most of the time you're online, you're gonna wanna be in an environment where the people are truly identified, that is they're connected to a real world identity that you trust instead of just people saying whatever they want. And so the idea of Providence, who sent me this email, was that really them? You know, we're gonna have to have systems and behaviors that we're more aware of, okay, who who says that? Who who created this?

There are allegations of mass doxing occurring on Community Notes, specifically targeting a conservative woman with children. The speaker blurred out names to prevent identification but claims this is a recurring issue. The concern is that Community Notes is allegedly being used to dox people simply because of differing views or in retaliation for being exposed for harassment. Two accounts, Enterprising Desert Raven and Resplendent Cedar Osprey, are allegedly linked to this activity. The speaker emphasizes the importance of privacy on X and expresses particular concern when children are involved, stating that doxing mothers by revealing their government-issued names publicly is unacceptable. The speaker says the goal is to protect children.

I received an email informing me that my LinkedIn account had been shut down. My friends couldn't find me on the platform anymore. LinkedIn stated that my account was restricted for sharing misleading or inaccurate content. The specific offenses were a video where I mentioned the CCP playing the Biden administration, another video discussing the climate religion and its objectives, and a statement that the climate agenda is a lie. LinkedIn claimed I violated their policies on hate speech, misinformation, and violence. This incident highlights the concerning power of tech companies, acting as a hybrid of corporate and state power, to silence speech that the government couldn't censor directly. I will fight to restore free speech and internet freedoms in our country.

If social media platforms do not moderate and monitor content, we lose total control. This loss of control results in real harm, beyond just social and psychological effects.

Yes, it is a crime to insult someone in public, and it's also a crime to insult them online, with potentially higher fines because it stays there. Even reposting untrue statements is a crime, as readers can't tell if you created or simply shared it. Punishments for hate speech can include jail time for repeat offenders, but often involve stiff fines and device confiscation, which shocks people. Recently, we accompanied state police during a raid in Northwest Germany. Six officers searched the suspect's home and seized his laptop and cell phone because prosecutors believed they were used to post a racist cartoon online. Simultaneously, over 50 similar raids occurred across Germany as part of a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech.

I was suspended by Claudine Gay for behavior harmful to the community. She accused me of violating norms and betraying trust at Harvard. Do you believe in karma? Calling for the genocide of Jews is bullying and harassment, without a doubt.

One strategy is shadowbanning, where a user is effectively banned without their knowledge. They can still post and interact, but no one else sees their content, leading them to believe there's a lack of engagement. While this gives control, it's risky because users may eventually discover the ban, resulting in negative backlash and ethical concerns. People have historically reacted strongly against shadowbanning, viewing it as a terrible practice. It's a controversial tactic that some platforms, like Reddit, have used, though it's unclear if Twitter still employs it.

If social media platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok don't moderate and monitor content, we lose total control. This loss of control extends beyond social and psychological effects to include real harm.

If platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok fail to moderate and monitor content, we risk losing control over the situation. This lack of oversight can lead to significant social and psychological consequences, as well as real harm.

There's a lot of content online that glorifies the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO, and that's dangerous. People might see him as a folk hero and then consider targeting other CEOs, like Elon Musk. Most CEOs have their addresses publicly available as a business expense, which makes them vulnerable. Someone unstable could confront them or worse, especially with how easy it is to acquire a weapon in some places. We need to be careful about what we post. Glorifying violence can inspire someone to act, turning them into a "folk hero" who sparks a revolution against the "ruling class". We can't allow that to happen.

- Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms. These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are. - I don't think it's widely known that 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous. - Wikipedia should implement a public rating and feedback system allowing readers to evaluate articles. They can't do that now. They don't have a comment section. They don't have any sort of rating section. - End indefinite blocking. Wikipedia's practice of blocking accounts permanently is unjust and ideologically motivated. In a period of two weeks, 47% of the blocks that had been done by Wikipedia were indefinite. - Indefinite blocks should be extremely rare and require multiple administrators to agree, with an appeal process for permanent blocks.

Speaker 0 argues that anonymity on social media stands in contrast to everyday norms in their countries, where masks on streets, unlicensed cars, IDs for packages, and names when purchasing hunting weapons are standard requirements. They point out that social networks currently allow people to roam freely without linking profiles to real identities, which they say enables misinformation, hate speech, and cyber harassment by facilitating bot activity and reducing accountability for actions. They contend that such an anomaly cannot continue. In a democracy, they claim, citizens have the right to privacy, but not the right to anonymity or impunity, because anonymity and impunity would undermine social coexistence. Based on this premise, they advocate for pushing forward the principle of pseudonymity as the functioning element of social media, and for forcing all platforms to link every user account to a European digital identity wallet. With this system, citizens would still be able to use nicknames if they choose, but in the case of a crime, public authorities would be able to connect those nicknames to real people and hold them responsible. The underlying assertion is that accountability is not an obstacle to freedom of speech, but rather an essential complement to it.