Rebecca Hains · Storify

The Block(head) Wars: Could Abuse Silence All?

Rebecca Hains — Wed, 02 May 2012 23:57:30 GMT

The Loesches believe some are abusing Twitter's "block and report for spam" function, tricking Twitter's algorithms into undeservedly banning accounts. But do the Loesches want the problem fixed, or do they support retaliatory actions? The answer is unclear.

Storified by Rebecca Hains · Wed, May 02 2012 16:57:30

On the heels of Chris Loesch's apparently undeserved banning from Twitter, Dana Loesch started a Twitter campaign: #freechrisloesch.

Fans supported the cause so vocally that the hashtag trended at #3 worldwide that night--quite the success. And as Dana pointed out, this wasn't just about her husband; abuse could be used to silence anyone.

Please help keep it up #freechrisloesch ! Not just @chrisloesch , but algorithm is vulnerable. Abuse could silence all.
— Dana Loesch · Sun, Apr 29 2012 22:43:49

She makes a great point: If the allegations of twitter abuse are true, it's a bipartisan issue--an issue for "all." Neither side should attempt to shut down the other, period.

Unfortunately, Chris may not agree.

A few hours before Dana's tweet, Chris retweeted a call for conservatives to start employing block-and-report tactics against liberals. So which is it: a concern for everyone, or just for the Loesches?

RT @GodDamnLush: @tut2112 @ChrisLoesch @allenbreuer This tactic by the libs is insane, it is time to start retaliating in kind. 3 suspensions in 2 weeks 4 me
— Chris Loesch · Sun, Apr 29 2012 17:50:08

Retaliate for the attack on @ChrisLoesch. BLOCK AND REPORT @BarackObama again and again. #twisters #tcot #ocra #FreeChrisLoesch @DLoesch
— Snarky Basterd · Mon, Apr 30 2012 04:38:55

So if I have this right, anytime you get a vile tweet from a ObamaBot, report and block them. It is spam. @Twitter right?
— WeOwe Congress Debts · Mon, Apr 30 2012 09:59:43

If the Loesches sincerely wish to solve the problem of twitter abuse for everybody, then they need to make sure they and their followers are not part of the problem.

The ethical course is clear: Dana and Chris should publicly state that they do NOT support retaliation. The last thing we need is for one group of blockheads to go around blocking another group of blockheads.

Like these reasonable folks said to all the reactionaries out there:

I know it's tempting to retaliate in kind for @ChrisLoesch and others. But it's wrong and unacceptable. We're better than that.
— Heather · Sun, Apr 29 2012 22:09:18

i've seen people on "the right" call for the same "block and report for spam" actions against certain lefty accounts. don't get amnesia now.
— brooks bayne · Sun, Apr 29 2012 23:09:33

Let's hope the Loesches do the right thing and clarify their position.

xo Rebecca

An addendum:
A few people have asked me to clarify my thinking on this situation. Here's the deai:

@rchains So are you now admitting the Twitter bans are a problem, and the result of abuse? Just curious.
— Vodka Drinker · Tue, May 01 2012 08:38:10

@GodDamnLush Well, I can't "admit" something I wasn't party to. But the more perspectives I hear, the more plausible the abuse theory seems.
— Rebecca Hains · Tue, May 01 2012 08:40:35

@GodDamnLush The evidence: 1) Chris's tweets were reasonable in content, so it wasn't for that. (cont'd)
— Rebecca Hains · Tue, May 01 2012 08:41:46

@GodDamnLush 2) His tweets were not of an unreasonable quantity, as this person clarified for me on GMP: http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/cnns-dana-loesch-attacked-on-twitter-her-husband-suspended-for-defending-her/comment-page-1/#comment-155159 (cont'd)
— Rebecca Hains · Tue, May 01 2012 08:42:16

@GodDamnLush Therefore, Occam's Razor: reporting for spam and abuse seems like the best guess. But it's just a guess, not an "admission."
— Rebecca Hains · Tue, May 01 2012 08:43:45

As this exchange documents, my thinking has evolved over time. At first, I wondered whether #1 or #2 might have been the issue. After seeing Chris's original tweets, I was leaning towards the quantity being an issue; a Yahoo News article had suggested as much. I had previously explained to another person who was critical of my take on the situation:

@rchains How is responding to ppl spamming? Its not like he could take over twitter and tweet to everyone. Only those who follow him see him
— Angela Bullard · Mon, Apr 30 2012 05:25:28

@Bookhound63 If he's anything like Dana & takes one tweet as an invitation to send a dozen or more in response, up to 3 in one minute?Spam.
— Rebecca Hains · Mon, Apr 30 2012 05:29:46

Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch: a postscript

Rebecca Hains — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:25:52 GMT

In my story "Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch," I documented CNN Tea Party correspondent Dana Loesch's love of lies. Here's a quick update.

Storified by Rebecca Hains · Wed, May 02 2012 11:25:52

Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch

Dana Loesch picked a fight with me on twitter. After proclaiming herself the winner, her fans gloated that she'd "schooled" me. Here, I r...

My Storify post, "Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch," has spread like wildfire: 48 hours later, it's had 2400 views and counting.

In response, I've received an outpouring of support. For example:

@rchains It brought a smile to my face reading the utter smack down you gave to a lying hack like @DLoesch. That was amazing. Thank you
— Robert Silverman · Sun, Apr 29 2012 13:23:37

.@rchains is my hero: Lessons in Lying with @CNN Contributor @DLoesch: http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1 #POWR #TeamUterati #CNN #UAWOW #unitedwomen
— Tempest in a Teapot · Sun, Apr 29 2012 16:11:54

@rchains You. Are. Awesome! Your beat down on @DLoesch was epic and her half formed attempts at rebuttal were honestly sad.
— Yume Kaito · Mon, Apr 30 2012 01:37:14

Wherein @rchains takes down @dloesch: http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1 Nicely done. No wonder she blocked you!
— chicashawna · Sun, Apr 29 2012 13:03:23

Aw, shucks! Thanks, folks.

Now, you may have noticed that those tweets didn't just tag me; they also tagged Loesh, thereby bringing the story to her attention. Many others tagged her, as well:

Must Read! MT @rchains: Lessons in Lying with @CNN Contributor @DLoesch: http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1 #POWR #TeamUterati #CNN #UAWOW #unitedwomen
— Imani ABL · Sun, Apr 29 2012 14:10:36

Classic right wing reality distortion: Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1 @rchains @DLoesch
— Charles Johnson · Sun, Apr 29 2012 12:57:23

Read @rchains account of @dloesch twitter harassment. Dana Loesch needs a hug...or some therapy. http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1 #p2
— Al · Mon, Apr 30 2012 06:14:16

Intelligent yet scathing takedown of @dloesch by @rchains. How humiliating. http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1/ Great hire, @CNN. #ReasonsIDontWatchCNN
— Greg Frayser · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:06:47

@GregFrayser @dloesch @rchains @cnn absolutely nailed it. Dana Loesch is a child, plain and simple.
— Gabi Alemán · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:23:49

@CNN If you're ever wondering why people don't watch your network, this is probably one of the reasons http://storify.com/rchains/lessons-in-lying-from-dana-loesch-1/
— Greg Frayser · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:29:44

So, how do you think she responded to these and other critics?

If you guessed, "She just kept on lying," then you, brilliant person, are correct! See for yourself:

@GregFrayser How funny! Still waiting for that explanation on how birth control is like cancer treatments. Never got it. Sad.
— Dana Loesch · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:09:19

That's right. Despite all the replies I sent her, as documented in my original Storify story about her twitter rampage, I never explained myself.

Liars: They just keep lying.

Now, for extra credit: Can you spot another incongruity hidden in her response?

Bonus points if you remembered that Loesch blocked me on Saturday! How, then, can she "still be waiting for that explanation"?

Savvy observers noted:

@rchains @GregFrayser Dana is 'still waiting' for a response from someone she's blocked? WOW
— Rob · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:14:24

@DLoesch @gregfrayser Could be mistaken,but if you block someone they can't write to you. but what do I know.
— Amy Brown · Mon, Apr 30 2012 20:38:34

Come on, CNN. You can't do better than this?

xo Rebecca

P.P.S.: For the past few days, Loesch has been inundated with tweets about this "takedown." Note, of course, that these tweets have nothing to do with me: Greg Frayser's phrasing seems to be delighting a lot of folks, and they're retweeting him independently.

Lessons in Lying from Dana Loesch

Rebecca Hains — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:05 GMT

Dana Loesch picked a fight with me on twitter. After proclaiming herself the winner, her fans gloated that she'd "schooled" me. Here, I report on what I *really* learned.

Storified by Rebecca Hains · Wed, May 02 2012 08:55:05

Like her mentor Andrew Breitbart, tea party leader and CNN contributor Dana Loesch has a knack for willfully misleading people. She's known for lying, bullying, and browbeating others.

I found myself the target of a Dana Loesch twitter rampage recently, when she attacked my position on birth control and medical insurance. I believe that all people deserve medical insurance that provides coverage for their health needs, whatever those health needs may be. Further to this, I believe birth control is as valid a medical need as any other, regardless of its opponents' many counterarguments.

During our exchange, I witnessed her penchant for dishonesty, sensationalism, and other disingenuous tactics. It was something remarkable, that's for sure.

Here's what I learned, distilled into 10 easy lessons for your reading pleasure. Enjoy!

Lesson #1: Want to stir up your fans? Cherry-pick a twitter comment and sensationalize it.

Yesterday evening, I was posting photos from the Unite Against the War on Women (#UAWOW) rally in Boston to twitter. While doing so, I noticed many conservative commenters were hijacking the #UAWOW thread. I replied to a couple, including this tweet from someone named Sam Valley:

@DLoesch Did you know if you switched "free birth control" with "new car", you can't tell the difference between #UAWOW, and a spoiled teen?
— Sam Valley · Sat, Apr 28 2012 11:59:59

@SamValley @dloesch We just want birth control under the health care plans we pay into. #UAWOW #NiceTry
— Rebecca Hains · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:24:08

As is normal in twitter, I included Sam's tweet's recipient in my reply to him. I'd never heard of @DLoesch, but as I'd soon discover, Dana has a reputation lying, bullying, and browbeating others. She gained extra notoriety after Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke, when Dana insisted that she could still call Fluke "whatever I want," then referred to her as a "nympho." Classy!

Anyhow...

Dana responded to my tweet with a favorite tea party "fact": She claimed birth control only costs $9 a month, meaning it's cheap like asprin and shouldn't be included in health insurance plans.

@rchains Why should your sisters shoulder higher premiums when you can get it yourself at Target for $9 a month?
— Dana Loesch · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:24:36

Cheap birth control isn't available to everyone, though (see below), and it doesn't work for everyone, either: the discounted generics are not universally effective, and other types cost exponentially more. So I replied:

@DLoesch Get your facts straight: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sandra-flukes-testimony-contradicted-by-9-birth-control-at-target/
— Rebecca Hains · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:42:29

@DLoesch "available only to discount prescription cardholders" and "that rate wouldn’t be available to Georgetown Law students like Fluke."
— Rebecca Hains · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:47:31

I also read the following subtext in her question: Why should the premiums non-birth control users go towards people's birth control costs? Doesn't that drive up non-users' costs? Besides being a misguided but increasingly common talking point, this is dangerously selfish thinking. It sets up a slippery slope for other health issues to be excluded from insurance coverage. So I asked:

@DLoesch Also, do you feel the same way about other expenses? Viagra? Cancer treatments? Other things that don't apply to you personally?
— Rebecca Hains · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:43:06

. @rchains You're seriously comparing cancer to birth control? WOW.
— Dana Loesch · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:43:36

@DLoesch If you get cancer because you choose to smoke your whole life, I will nevertheless pay higher premiums to cover your treatments.
— Rebecca Hains · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:46:22

. @rchains I want you to explain how birth control for recreational sex (most plans cover unrelated to sex) is like cancer.
— Dana Loesch · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:47:12

In this way, Dana formulated her Big Lie: that I claim birth control is "like" cancer treatments.

Knowing nothing about her, though, her request seemed a random nonsequitur. My position is that all health care expenses should be covered -- not that they're all directly equivalent. Duh. So, I wrote her off as a troll and ignored her illogical demand.

Which leads us to:

Lesson #2: Does your target ignore you when you bait her? Are you frustrated she doesn't recognize you're an Important Person? Just tweet at her as often as you can, up to three times a minute! That's not immature--it's 100% respectable.

Meanwhile, in each rapid-fire tweet, sensationalize things. Mischaracterize your target's original statement as one of direct equivalency. Show off that moral outrage, Rambo style!

4/28/12, 15:48:06:

@rchains But Fluke could afford trips to Europe and fancy law school, not bc? Explain how birth control is equal to cancer treatments.
— Dana Loesch · Sat, Apr 28 2012 12:48:06

4/28/12, 15:48:66: