I don’t get it. Someone on her staff resigned; there was a news story about this resignation; someone tweeted at the MP about the resignation, and the MP noted that the tweeter had a real picture of the resigner in their profile? Where’s the doxxing?
-
-
Replying to @feministleaning @GMB_MPs_Staff and
She didn’t name the person- she said “seeing as you have them in your picture”. Most ppl wouldn’t know how to find someone’s identity out from a small snap on a twitter bio but I guess the Gender Extremists are more into dodgy internet tactics.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ElleKayLondon @feministleaning and
It's called "reverse image search" and everyone who doesn't live in a cave has heard of it since TinEye launched twelve fucking years ago
3 replies 3 retweets 66 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @feministleaning and
Ok Arthur, some of us don’t live on the internet, are actual members of the political party Rosie is an elected representative of and are women affected by the issues she’s rightly concerned about
Here in UK trans ppl are rightly protected by law. Women are meant to be too.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ElleKayLondon @feministleaning and
One of the things they're protected by law against is retaliation from an abusive employer
2 replies 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @GMB_MPs_Staff and
She resigned in protest. That’s the entire point— she is no longer an employee. Retaliation doesn’t include identifying that a former employee is in someone else’s profile picture on social media. That’s not employment retaliation under any understanding of it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @feministleaning @arthur_affect and
The idea that someone can resign in protest from a real life position in the government and then have a published article written about, and then insist that they have total anonymity such that commenting that such a person is in a public facing photograph is facially absurd.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @feministleaning @arthur_affect and
The MP was tweeted at by the Tweeter who had the *publicly facing* photo of the Resigner, about the topic of the Resigner. The MP commented that the Tweeter was biased bc they had a picture of the Resigner in their Twitter profile. Which they did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @feministleaning @GMB_MPs_Staff and
It isn't absurd at all, it's exactly the reason an anonymity clause exists, and Duffield feeling like it's unreasonable not to lash out when one of her ex-staffer's friends/family criticizes her on Twitter is the whole problem
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @GMB_MPs_Staff and
They criticized her publicly and not-anonymously. *They* broke the anonymity. The person who violated the resigner’s privacy was the friend.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Nobody would've had any idea the person had a photo of the staffer in their profile if Duffield hadn't said it so this is obviously false
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @GMB_MPs_Staff and
No one would have known what the the staffer looked like if the tweeter hadn’t had her picture in their profile. It isn’t “lashing out” to point out a person’s affiliation with the topic at hand when that person presents their affiliation with the topic at hand.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @feministleaning @GMB_MPs_Staff and
It is absolutely lashing out What other reason is there to "point that out"
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.