I'm confused as to what this means. If someone views a Trump policy as questionable morally, yet still goes along with it, they should be doxxed? It seems it would be hard to prove that person viewed, or didn't view the policy as morally questionable to begin with. Would there be an opportunity given to defend their position, like a trial?

I'm not seeing how that should be a good thing. Could you provide an example?

Also, with the current civil unrest, I would think elected representatives would rather not further the divide by suggesting to their followers to seek out "Trump sycophants".

@saramarylop3z There are a number of head of department jobs filled by Trump and the only qualification needed was that they do Trumps bidding.

@maxmaccc I still don't understand what this means, but I've seen a lot of similar comments online in regards to AOCs tweet. I guess without clarification from AOC, I really can't know for sure. It's hard interpreting Twitter. Why make a statement, then when questioned, not respond? I don't get it.

@saramarylop3z The appointment of Bill Barr has made the DOJ unfit for purpose, for example.

@maxmaccc If AOC already had specific names like Barr, McConnell, Graham, and Cruz, or anyone else she feels needs documenting, I don't understand why she wouldn't include them in her Tweet. I'm also confused how asking her followers to archive "Trump sycophants" is a good idea without clarification as to what that means exactly.

Michael Simon clarified which I appreciated:

• I regret it. Ordinary Trump voters are our fellow Americans. But ppl who took a paycheck from Trump shouldn’t be able to remove it from LinkedIn & pretend they didn’t participate.

On another note, I've had a Twitter account for about a year now and I've been extremely turned off about trying to engage with anyone on it. The doxxing, censoring, and other practices make it rather pointless. I quickly realized some of my political beliefs would be a big problem. So, seeing AOCs tweet didn't exactly help. Which is kind of a shame. Twitter looks like it could be a lot of fun considering the world wide reach, and so many different people on it.

@saramarylop3z The "I'm offended" brigade are killing free speech. If anyone posts on Twitter, Facebook e.t.c they must employ the worst kind of censorship to their posts, self censorship. This stops them, in some cases being specific and exact in the words they use. This sometimes results in a wishy washy, on the fence, middle of the road opinion with little meaning, all because of the fear of retaliation, being doxxed or booted altogether. I feel the same way about Twitter. I can count the number of times i've posted anything on facebook on one hand.
At least on Slug i can post my thoughts on any subject and, although there is a degree of censorship here, most of my posts have made it through the vetting process.
I miss the days when you could post absolutely anything on Usenet. Sadly it's been replaced by Reddit, a pale shadow of its former self.

"Trump sycophants" is not the same as giving actual names of politicians. Michael Simon saying "everyone" is not saying only specific named individuals. They are asking for any and all high donors, influencers, and Trump campaign staffers to be named. This is the site:

[trumpaccountability.net]

Asking for followers to seek out information on "Trump sycophants" can lead to doxxing otherwise innocent individuals online on the basis of their political beliefs. I don't condone this on either end.

@saramarylop3z ok, so first - what does Michael Simon have to do with AOC? He responded to her Tweet, one of thousands. Did she respond to him? Agree with his wide net?

It also looks like Simon deleted his Tweet, clarifying:

I regret it. Ordinary Trump voters are our fellow Americans. But ppl who took a paycheck from Trump shouldn’t be able to remove it from LinkedIn & pretend they didn’t participate.

It is merely calling for accountability. No one should be doxxed, but there should be transparency.

@JacksonNought I'm glad he retracted and clarified. Tensions are high as it is online. I'm still unsure how asking followers to help in this task is a good idea. Hence why I figured I'd ask on slug. I'm not bothered as much seeing crazy things or even controversial statements made on Twitter. Coming from elected representatives like AOC, I find discrimination based on political belief more on the unprofessional side. If Ted Cruz, for example, asked for a list of "Biden sycophants", I'd feel the same way.

Also, I've only been on Twitter for about a year, and still don't understand the attraction of chaotic declarative "conversation". It's a strange concept to tweet out a statement, receive thousands of either pros or cons (mostly consisting of nonsensical memes, slurs, and insults), and then never follow up on it. It's like only reading the first sentence in a pile of books, and then throwing them away. It's weird.