Thread by @nine_niall

#SeditionHunters, finally watched the @nytimes piece (via @capitolhunters) by @NatalieReneau, @_stella_cooper, @alanfeuer, and @itsAByrd.

I encourage everyone to watch it. It's extremely well produced. It's a good synopsis of the PB J6 actions.

But

1/

nytimes.com/video/us/polit…

I have a major issue with it.

And having watched it, I understand the context of @capitolhunters thread better and what they were tactfully trying to accomplish with their recognition of all of us (and Cap, much love. Thank you).

I love the @nytimes, current and archives...

2/

I can't tell you how often I use it for research.

I love a good bit of the previous work of those involved in the video.

I appreciate the (vastly) greater reach to the general public the @nytimes has over most of our little Twitter accounts followings.

3/

The video states that the @nytimes "building on the work of online researchers, spent months finding Proud Boys in videos of January 6th" and that "our analysis shows, for the first time, how central they were to the Capitol attack."

These type claims are a problem...

4/

It is greatly disingenuous, @NatalieReneau, @_stella_cooper, @alanfeuer, @itsAByrd, to claim that the information in your video was your "analysis" and it's an outright lie to claim you are the first to show how central Proud Boys were to the J6 attack.

In the days after...

5/

January 6th it became clear to a group of #SeditionHunters how important a role the Proud Boys played.

A subset group of SH focused solely on Proud Boys. We worked together. Some of it evolved organically. Some important partnerships were formed on purpose.

Clearly...

6/

@NatalieReneau, @_stella_cooper, @alanfeuer, @itsAByrd you are familiar with the work we did, that you claimed "to build off of."

In fact, the vast majority of the content in the video has been made public by this group of #SeditionHunters.

The detailed timelines...

7/

The detailed analysis of videos.

The identification of Proud Boys, sans colors, who were all over the Capitol that day. Even the ones we haven't identified by name... were identified as PB members due to members spending brutal, countless hours combing through...

8/

video and photos of past Proud Boy rallies across the country, dating back years.

I could go on, easily, through most of "your" analysis.

The receipts are available, in the form of endless tweets from members.

Making the information public was purposeful. For community...

9/

awareness, for use in official investigations, and hopefully (but for the most part rarely with a few notable exceptions) for the media to make use of to spread to the public.

Never for some journalist to advance their investigative credentials.

It's not even my own...

10/

time, effort, and contributions (which I think were significant, but I'm biased 😉) that cause me to be so pissed off over your "analysis" claims.

Over the last year and a half, I've stepped away for months and months. Once due to exhaustion... more recently other health...

11/

issues, unrelated.

It's the bonds and camaraderie formed since we started this journey and the respect of other's contributions.

We have people who have doggedly researched and pursued Proud Boys continuously since J6.

And we have people we've lost, we won't see...

/12

ever again. Folk who were amazing researchers and collaborators. These people put so much of themselves into our mission that they literally had nothing left to give. They passionately believed in what we were doing, to the detriment of health and family...

/13

and ultimately had to walk away, for good. Sometimes encouraged by us, but at a significant loss for us.

I've been involved since the beginning. I knew as soon as I saw the Proud Boys marching and attack the barriers, they would be my focus.

But I'm not any kind of...

/14

group leader, really. Or any kind of spokesman. We never worked like that. We work best organically and where everyone is equal.

This is solely my opinion. Maybe other #SeditionHunters will agree. Maybe more of them will disagree. We collaborate but maintain autonomy...

/15

over our posts.

What it boils down to is this, @NatalieReneau, @_stella_cooper, @alanfeuer, @itsAByrd, I will always speak up if I feel my colleague's work is disrespected.

With the exception of integrating the text messages into the story line (nicely done) and less...

16/

than a handful of video I haven't seen posted and analyzed (but others in the group may have)... the work and analysis was preformed by others in our group.

Claiming it as your own *is* disrespecting their work.

I can't (and won't) stay silent on that.

17/

Regardless of how large or small an audience the thread receives.

The absolute kicker?

None of us did this (do this) for publicity. Some of us (myself included) have talked to the media about our efforts and motivation.

But this effort was never about getting our...

18/

individual names in print. A lot of us shun it. I've ignored countless request.

Typically crediting us as "online researchers" is satisfactory.

You could have made the piece as a video synopsis of PB actions based on "the efforts and analysis of online researchers..."

/19

Which would have been truthful. Ethical.

Did you think because we are mostly anonymous accounts that no one would call you out. Or we'd be thrilled to be mentioned, in any fashion, in the New York Times? Or did you just not care?

@capitolhunters posted an excellent...

20/

thread in a QT of your video. As I said way back at the beginning, I didn't realize exactly why until I watched the video myself.

It's a tiny example of what we, as a group, have done.

21/

https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1537832964939186178?s=20&t=kUWq397cllOPFs3K_K3ecg

Again, the video was excellent. Great production, jou did a terrific job of telling a decent portion of the story, in an easy to follow storyboard.

The illustrations/ graphics are great.

I sincerely encourage everyone to watch.

But ignore the claims of "their" analysis.

/end