Kyle Rittenhouse faces several charges, including first-degree murder, for shooting and killing two men and injuring a third in Kenosha, Wisc., in August during rioting in the city over the shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse was immediately branded a white supremacist: Rep. Ayanna Pressley called him a “white supremacist domestic terrorist,” and candidate Joe Biden during the debates asked President Trump if he was willing to denounce white supremacists like Kyle Rittenhouse.
People are angry this weekend to read in the Guardian that people are donating to “white supremacist” Rittenhouse’s legal defense fund. The Guardian named and shamed people who donated after Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo was breached by hackers.
US police and public officials donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, data breach reveals https://t.co/l02GVYTIO7
— The Guardian (@guardian) April 16, 2021
The Guardian went ahead and traced email addresses and published names, like that of William Kelly, who is now under investigation by his police department after donating $25 and anonymously posting a message of support.
BREAKING: The Norfolk Police Department is investigating the conduct of a high-ranking officer accused of donating to the defense fund of Kyle Rittenhouse, the man charged with the murder of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. https://t.co/oxpzrJnQUV
— WAVY TV 10 (@WAVY_News) April 16, 2021
Per @guardian, a comment with the alleged donation said: “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong” & “Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership"
— WAVY TV 10 (@WAVY_News) April 16, 2021
The story was promoted on Twitter’s news feed, even though Twitter blocked links to the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it violated their policy on hacked materials.
Recommended
The Guardian used 'breached' data to dox rank-and-file police who donated $20 to the officer who was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting Jacob Blake.
Twitter manually promoted the article, despite 'hacked materials' and 'personal information' policies.https://t.co/X795TQ4Oc9
— Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) April 17, 2021
There is no apparent news value to naming the officers, who were supporting the due process rights of a colleague and who had donated using the 'anonymous' feature. 'There’s no other value other than to make them fearful,' co-founded of the victimized crowdfunding company said.
— Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) April 17, 2021
Twitter actively promoted a story doxxing rank-and-file police officers (and financial info that was supposed to be anonymous) based on a 'data breach' — one week after it blocked @WhitlockJason for tweeting the TOWN that BLM founder lives in, calling it 'personal information.'
— Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) April 17, 2021
Fact-check: True.
Twitter knows the Guardian's source, Distributed Denial of Secrets, traffics in hacked data because Twitter itself banned its account for that reason.
The group has published nearly 270 gigabytes of data from “over 200 police departments" and from ransomware victims.
— Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) April 17, 2021
It makes more sense when you realize they have an agenda.
The rules are in place to stop their enemies from fighting back.
— RaidenMonster (@RaidenMonster) April 17, 2021
@jack needs to reside indefinitely in #GITMO
— Prince Valiant Stunt Double (@Art_Vallejo) April 17, 2021
Twitter needs to be sued, then sued, then sued again.
— Hockeyguy77 (@Hockeyguy771) April 17, 2021
I would love an explanation from @TwitterSupport regarding how the Guardian article is not violating their hacked materials policy?
Also, even ignoring the sourcing, a media outlet targeting private individuals that donated to legal defense funds is wrong and disturbing. https://t.co/YFaClOHmPC
— AG (@AGHamilton29) April 17, 2021
I suspect it’s because there *is* no hacked materials policy, and it was just some lame thing they made up to justify suppressing a politically inconvenient news story last year.
— Staunch Curmudgeon (@StaunchCon) April 17, 2021
If you can't understand that they make things up on the fly to not hurt the politics of their ideology then I don't know what to say. They're not a neutral arbiter of rules.
— The Doctor (@delta8488) April 17, 2021
You misunderstand @Twitter’s policy. The policy is left wing propaganda and intimidation. The Guardian article complies.
— Monsieur Le Pew (@DPrez54) April 17, 2021
James O' Keefe can't engage in discrete reporting because of privacy concerns but the Guardian can publish hacked information about public citizens and no one bats an eye.
Shameless.
— Jaden C (@Overlyplatonic) April 17, 2021
Yep, O’Keefe was permanently banned following the drop of his damning exposé of CNN.
Hypocrisy in enforcing arbitrary social media platform rules is infrastructure.
— Orb (@InfiniteOrb) April 17, 2021
It’s kind of funny how Biden’s laptop was “hacked” by the guy he gave it to to recover the hard drive (which he doesn’t remember doing).
Related:
After banning Project Veritas, Twitter spox tells Yashar Ali that Lincoln Project’s private DM stunt ‘[does] NOT violate Twitter rules’ or hacked materials policy https://t.co/vEFe8qYF3X
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) February 12, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member