CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Childlike Empress]

For the record:

• The video from the Trump tweet in full resolution
• The GIF by HanAssholeSolo as uploaded to Reddit (from archive.org)
• The GIF I falsely assumed was a repost of the original on reddit which some of us reasonably assumed (and likely indeed is) a conversion from the Trump video or its hypothetic unknown origin

 

[Elagabalus]

There's more stuff in it, Elvis. It's larger and longer, has more content and colour and pixels and there's sound in it. Stop pretending that those things don't exist.



Okay...

The looping was in the GIF, not the video. So you have it the other way around. The content I was refering to must come from another video or GIF, which instead indicates that the video was made NOT from this one GIF, but from another. Ostensibly we've now found the GIF in question (Q), so it seems to support what I said: the smaller GIF was NOT the source of the video, the other, larger GIF was.



That's the point of my analogy: you need the original RAW one way or another. Ergo the GIF isn't used to create the RAW at all. Same thing here: the smaller GIF was entirely inadequate to produce the video. The larger GIF, however, seems adequate. That was my entire argument, so I feel like my point has been made and vindicated.

I just made a resize from CE's link (middle link) at 1280x720. It doesn't look bad.

 

[Belz...]

Where's the original GIF?

See post 806.

I just made a resize from CE's link at 1280x720. It doesn't look bad.

The new one above or the old one?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not an expert on video editing but as far as I know .mp4 is just a container format, which means you can create one with a high resolution and frame rate and put content into it with lower resolution and frame rate, which then gets "stretched". If you play the Trump video at full resolution it looks quite pixelated.

I think we can be pretty sure now that the video was derived from the GIF.

From the GIF you posted more recently, I'd agree. My argument with Elvis (I love saying that. I'd love to have an argument with Elvis!) was about the earlier, smaller GIF.

 

[Shepherd]

(snip)
Ostensibly we've now found the GIF in question (Q), so it seems to support what I said: the smaller GIF was NOT the source of the video, the other, larger GIF was.
(snip)

After now having seen the original gif (your Q), though it is of higher image quality/resolution and includes more real estate with the WWE logo and everything, the image size is actually smaller than the one we had previously seen.

The gif we had seen before is 600x338 pixels and the original (Q) is 480x270.

I find the Trump tweeted video and the earlier gif to be of equally crappy quality. I'd be ashamed to have made either one after having seen the original. Some people need to research their compression formats.

I suspect the gif we saw before was actually made from the video rather than from the original gif because they are so similar in their poor quality and are both cropped the same.

I'm not sure that I accept your arguments based on resolution that it couldn't have gone the other way around, though. The frames from the video and from the earlier gif look just too similar to me.

We might have to put it to a test later.

 

[CapelDodger]

From the GIF you posted more recently, I'd agree. My argument with Elvis (I love saying that. I'd love to have an argument with Elvis!) was about the earlier, smaller GIF.

(Whereas arguing with Sinatra? Fuggedaboudit.)

This thread has generated spectacular traffic, so I'm pretty behind on the state of play.

As I understand it, a video of Trump doing a WWF smack-down has long been on youtube. This Hanswhatsit character thought to make a gif of it with the CNN logo pasted on. Trump tweets something very similar with embellishments. Hanswhatsit thought it was derived from his gif, as did others on Reddit who'd seen it, but now there's some question about that. Is that about the size of it?

If the Reddit gif didn't inspire what Trump tweeted it implies that somebody else had the same notion as Hanswhatsit at pretty much the same time. Not impossible, of course, but it strikes me as unlikely

 

[Childlike Empress]

As I understand it, a video of Trump doing a WWF smack-down has long been on youtube. This Hanswhatsit character thought to make a gif of it with the CNN logo pasted on. Trump tweets something very similar with embellishments. Hanswhatsit thought it was derived from his gif, as did others on Reddit who'd seen it, but now there's some question about that. Is that about the size of it?

Nope. The guy had a huge media corporation coming after him, coercing him into "apologizing" and deleting all his supaevilantisemanticanimenazi stuff from the webz. And that media corporation claimed that Trump retweeted the guy's stuff, or at least implied it strongly enough to have certain "skeptics" here falling from the sky over the idea that someone could question the truth of that. And it turned out that it wasn't true - Trump posted a derivitive that nobody knows how it came into his hands and who made it, with no sign that he knew what a terrible supaevilantisemanticanimenazi the bullied reddit user is, hence the smear attempt failing and CNN looking like the scum they are and having a bunch of very special internet forces coming after them.

That's about it.

 

[Minoosh]

The tweet was harmless,*Trump*retweeting it was harmless ...

As others have been quick to point out PDJT wasn't "retweeting" because meme wasn't a tweet ... or something like that.

CNN over-reacted like power hungry tyrants and used their vast resources to track down a Redditor and threatened him.

I don't think it was all that hard to track him down.

They did in fact cause him harm in terms of the emotional stress he was caused by fearing he*would be exposed and potentially have serious real life consequences, so much so that he contacted CNN and by their admission sounded "nervous" and profusely apologized.

Why was he nervous? Why not just stand by his posts? He wanted to spread bigoted memes but he wanted nothing to do with accountability. Now he's a victim?

And*no, it is not reasonable to say that all someone has to do to not be bullied by a multinational corporation is to "stop thinking or saying certain things" and tow the party line.

Toe the party line.

I understand what you're saying about CNN, but Mr. Hole is not some kind of freedom fighter. He wanted to say nasty things anonymously. When there's a possible breach of anonymity he craps his pants.

(That is if you believe CNN's account)

 

[The Big Dog]

As others have been quick to point out PDJT wasn't "retweeting" because meme wasn't a tweet ... or something like that.
I don't think it was all that hard to track him down.
Why was he nervous? Why not just stand by his posts? He wanted to spread bigoted memes but he wanted nothing to do with accountability. Now he's a victim?
Toe the party line.

I understand what you're saying about CNN, but Mr. Hole is not some kind of freedom fighter. He wanted to say nasty things anonymously. When there's a possible breach of anonymity he craps his pants.

(That is if you believe CNN's account)

There was of course nothing bigoted about the gif he made, not in the slightest. Other posts may have been, but they were totally unrelated to the gif.

CNN used those other posts as leverage and went out and threatened to expose the jamoke, then making up some lie about how they were concerned for his safety. O'Rly, then why did you 'reserve rights" to release his ID CNN if he did not obey.

#cnnblackmail

 

[Childlike Empress]

He wanted to say nasty things anonymously.

Why do you hate the Internet?

 

[Belz...]

As I understand it, a video of Trump doing a WWF smack-down has long been on youtube. This Hanswhatsit character thought to make a gif of it with the CNN logo pasted on. Trump tweets something very similar with embellishments. Hanswhatsit thought it was derived from his gif, as did others on Reddit who'd seen it, but now there's some question about that. Is that about the size of it?

That's only a portion of the discussion. The larger discussion is about CNN's actions towards the guy.

My participation in the discussion was chiefly because, in my opinion as an IT guy of 17 years, the GIF we had earlier in the thread, from reddit, couldn't be the source of the video Trump posted for a host of reasons, but was instead probably created from the same source as the video. The newer GIF we've seen now seems to confirm that, as it seems to have been the source of both, possibly made by the same guy (Han...solo).

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure that I accept your arguments based on resolution that it couldn't have gone the other way around, though. The frames from the video and from the earlier gif look just too similar to me.

Except that the shorter video doesn't have the whole sequence, and is more choppy. I get that it's hard for a lot of people to see the difference in picture quality but these other features are unmistakable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There was of course nothing bigoted about the gif he made, not in the slightest. Other posts may have been, but they were totally unrelated to the gif.

To quote the mods...body of work.

 

[d4m10n]

He wanted to spread bigoted memes but he wanted nothing to do with accountability.

This is the key observation here. Many people seem to believe that journalists owe HanA**holeSolo a duty of confidentiality, because . . . memes are sacred or something. Certainly they haven't been able to cite anything from the canons of journalistic ethics on point, which makes me wonder why they expect to persuade anyone from that profession.

Has anyone made a good argument that we generally owe reddit users (or anyone else) a duty to protect their real names from being linked with their pseudonyms? If so, I'd like to see what the argument looks like.

 

[Minoosh]

There was of course nothing bigoted about the gif he made, not in the slightest. Other posts may have been, but they were totally unrelated to the gif.

Right. I was talking about other posts. Why would he crap his pants over having his name attached to the GIF?

CNN used those other posts as leverage and went out and threatened to expose the jamoke, then making up some lie about how they were concerned for his safety. O'Rly, then why did you 'reserve rights" to release his ID CNN if he did not obey.

Stupid to say they reserved the right because they have the right; no need to reserve it.

So the original CNN story (as far as I know) did not cite Mr. Hole's safety as a concern. Then CNN issues a statement that cites Mr. Hole's safety as a concern. That really does sound to me like someone from CNN PR saying to News, "Give us a statement we can release to BuzzFeed so they can release it to Newsweek." (Or whatever). Things get garbled.

Guy spreads offensive memes anonymously. Under cover of anonymity, claims ownership of CNN meme. Humbly refuses to take credit for his anti-Semitic and racist posts. Hero!

 

[Minoosh]

Why do you hate the Internet?

Because I used to have a sweet job in print media!

 

[Minoosh]

This is the key observation here. Many people seem to believe that journalists owe HanA**holeSolo a duty of confidentiality, because . . . memes are sacred or something. Certainly they haven't been able to cite anything from the canons of journalistic ethics on point, which makes me wonder why they expect to persuade anyone from that profession.

Has anyone made a good argument that we generally owe reddit users (or anyone else) a duty to protect their real names from being linked with their pseudonyms? If so, I'd like to see what the argument looks like.

I prefer not to have my real name linked to Internet postings, but it's out of a general concern for privacy, not a specific concern that my posts might offend someone.

IMO, CNN comes across as taking itself way too seriously. But I don't blame them for trying to pin down the source.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Because I used to have a sweet job in print media!

Touché.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's only a portion of the discussion. The larger discussion is about CNN's actions towards the guy.

I realise that : I made some comments a couple of days ago, which is a dozen pages or so back.

My participation in the discussion was chiefly because, in my opinion as an IT guy of 17 years ...

And I get you're a newbie. I also get that IT is a newbie's game : I gave up the struggle ten years ago.

the GIF we had earlier in the thread, from reddit, couldn't be the source of the video Trump posted for a host of reasons, but was instead probably created from the same source as the video. The newer GIF we've seen now seems to confirm that, as it seems to have been the source of both, possibly made by the same guy (Han...solo).

Hanswhatsit does seem to have thought his gif was the inspiration, but what occurred to him could easily have occurred to someone else. The story I'd like to hear concerns the later part of its journey : who put Trump onto it, and who put them onto it?

Naturally the possibility that Hanswhatsit wasn't the inspiration has become another stick to beat the FakeNews drum with, wherein lies the real threat. There's no need to suppress free speech when you've innoculated enough people against anything deemed irregular.

 

[CapelDodger]

I prefer not to have my real name linked to Internet postings, but it's out of a general concern for privacy, not a specific concern that my posts might offend someone.

I'm the same. If I inadvertantly offend someone as, say, CapelDodger I'm just as mortified as I would be (have been ) in real life.

On the plus side, when I deliberately offend someone I don't risk a punch on the nose, and I hate it when that happens.

IMO, CNN comes across as taking itself way too seriously. But I don't blame them for trying to pin down the source.

I really don't see it like that. The way some people present it, nobody else was covering Trump's tweet, and CNN isn't covering anything but. Pretty much everyone was, from the "What does this say about Trump?" angle or the celebratory angle of all things Murdoch and the like. In such cases new angles are at a premium, and interviewing the (apparent) inspiration is such an angle. Someone at CNN came up with it, but anybody could have, and surely would have soon enough. Perhaps CNN should have recused themselves, but where's that kind of thinking taking us? Nowhere good, I suggest.