CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[Childlike Empress]

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden

 

[uke2se]

I cannot shake the feeling that those defending HanA**holeSolo's right to preserve anonymity must have posted some pretty unsavory **** themselves, under their own pseudonyms. Either that or they must feel that anonymous speech is generally a good thing, promoting useful and productive discourse, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

In some cases I'm sure it's quite the wake-up call for people to see that they can't do anything they want and still expect no consequences, but in general I think it's more a question of not understanding press ethics and the public interest. That's really no surprise given that the people in question devote so much of their time attacking the real press while inundating themselves with "alternative" fake media.

That said, HanAssholeSolo is still anonymous, un-doxxed.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think you miss the more obvious explanation. There is a sense that there exists a set of institutions that once an organization reaches that point, separate standards, even if they are a private group, kick in. In this case, it constrains their behavior towards private citizens.

Not sure why you even bother responding to such a grossly fallacious false dichotomy that is suggesting that anyone who does not agree with his position must be a closet bigot. There are dozens of reporters and other journalists who have been very critical of CNN's idiotic conduct, viz: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...lackmail_it_was_petty_self_righteousness.html

But maybe that guy is a private bigot too.

Posts like that really reach the nadir of discussion these days.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden

Except not a privacy issue. They identified him based on information he purposely made public. This would be some sort of right to not have your statements collated.

 

[d4m10n]

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden

He said that under his own name?

 

[Foolmewunz]

My favorite faux "clever" line in that foregoing substance free rant? Nope, it is not the reference to "our Big Dog," it is not the "humorous" "rousing chorus" line, it is the "pardner" that kicked it all off. It is like cracking knuckles before the whole trying way too hard thing explodes in an explosion of fail.

It made me laugh tho, "pardner"!

It's a line from old westerns. It was a joke, a joke, I say, son!

 

[uke2se]

It's a line from old westerns. It was a joke, a joke, I say, son!

He called your post "fail". Aren't you burned? I mean, it was such a good burn, wasn't it?

 

[Stacko]

He said that under his own name?

He also talking about government mass surveillance collecting cell phone data and not posts you made on a public internet forum. I expect my phone calls, data usage and texts to be private compared to posts I make here.

 

[Mumbles]

I cannot shake the feeling that those defending HanA**holeSolo's right to preserve anonymity must have posted some pretty unsavory **** themselves, under their own pseudonyms. Either that or they must feel that anonymous speech is generally a good thing, promoting useful and productive discourse, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

I've seen some people also discuss this as "doxing" who should know better, using their actual names and faces, so likely not. THere's this goofy idea, though, that any who wants "anonymity" should get it, regardless of circumstances. This is, to put it charitably, absurd. If you're the one on film screaming hateful nonsense, committing a crime, and so forth, I'd say that you've waived your "right to privacy" - and I think we'd agree that "online statement that anyone on earth could easily research" is not at all private.

(And what, exactly, counts as "hateful"? Well, they can welcome themselves to a discussion that has been occuring for far longer than any of us have been around.)

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden

Got any other unsavory people to quote?

 

[Childlike Empress]

^ nice try.

 

[Sherkeu]

CNN said:
"The Reddit user who initially claimed credit for President Donald Trump's tweet that showed Trump tackling CNN issued an apology Tuesday for the video and other offensive content he posted -- one day after CNN identified the man behind the account and attempted to make contact with him."

Untrue. The reddit user never apologizes for the video. He apologizes for the *other* troll posts he made under the same user name. He explains the intent of the video as satire. Sane people get that it is a joke, like thousands and thousands of others.

So CNN says they are "not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same."

But this remorse is for the awful racist, anti-semitic posts - not the video. The only thing he regrets about the video is that he "said anything" afterwards which put him and the reddit forum in the controversy.
A story about the subreddit/4chan culture where thousands of memes are made is fine. Singling out this one sh1tposter is NOT news. Once they found it came from a common US internet troll, that should have been the end of it. Let the trashy mags dig up more if they want.

I see that the CNN article was posted later in the day on July 4th. Maybe they didn't have enough sober people to write/review it before it went out. It's a really bizarre statement.

 

[Elagabalus]

CNN said:
"The Reddit user who initially claimed credit for President Donald Trump's tweet that showed Trump tackling CNN issued an apology Tuesday for the video and other offensive content he posted -- one day after CNN identified the man behind the account and attempted to make contact with him."

Untrue. The reddit user never apologizes for the video. He apologizes for the *other* troll posts he made under the same user name. He explains the intent of the video as satire. Sane people get that it is a joke, like thousands and thousands of others.

So CNN says they are "not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same."

But this remorse is for the awful racist, anti-semitic posts - not the video. The only thing he regrets about the video is that he "said anything" afterwards which put him and the reddit forum in the controversy.
A story about the subreddit/4chan culture where thousands of memes are made is fine. Singling out this one sh1tposter is NOT news. Once they found it came from a common US internet troll, that should have been the end of it. Let the trashy mags dig up more if they want.

I see that the CNN article was posted later in the day on July 4th. Maybe they didn't have enough sober people to write/review it before it went out. It's a really bizarre statement.

Pfffffftt. That's just because he was cowering in fear. And probably not just because of CNN but because his wife might find out.

Seriously, I think most here agree that last paragraph was silly to say. And how do we know that CNN wasn't going for a much broader story about people who like to be dicks on internet? I, for one would, like see less of that behavior on the intertubes so maybe facing a bit of consequences of one's actions might be in order?

 

[CapelDodger]

I cannot shake the feeling that those defending HanA**holeSolo's right to preserve anonymity must have posted some pretty unsavory **** themselves, under their own pseudonyms. Either that or they must feel that anonymous speech is generally a good thing, promoting useful and productive discourse, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

I recall Trump being outraged that the media were allowed (!) to quote anonymous sources, and declaring that his administration was going to do something about that.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see that the CNN article was posted later in the day on July 4th. Maybe they didn't have enough sober people to write/review it before it went out. It's a really bizarre statement.

I think too many lawyers got their fingers in it.

 

[d4m10n]

Seriously, I think most here agree that last paragraph was silly to say. And how do we know that CNN wasn't going for a much broader story about people who like to be dicks on internet? I, for one would, like see less of that behavior on the intertubes so maybe facing a bit of consequences of one's actions might be in order?

Everyone who lives in a free speech regime (e.g. USA) should have the courage to stand behind their public proclamations. HanA**holeSolo is a *********** coward, in addition to being a racist. CNN should have correctly attributed his public publications to him, from the get go. Anyone who says otherwise is knowingly promoting unaccountability.

 

[Sherkeu]

I think too many lawyers got their fingers in it.

You may be right. It does sound more like the statement of someone who decides not to sue or press charges for some wrongdoing.

Like if he had vandalized the CNN building, they may say:
"We appreciate his remorse at his actions and have decided not to press charges at this time, but if anything changes, we might"
That would be a fair threat of action.

 

[CapelDodger]

You may be right. It does sound more like the statement of someone who decides not to sue or press charges for some wrongdoing.

Like if he had vandalized the CNN building, they may say:
"We appreciate his remorse at his actions and have decided not to press charges at this time, but if anything changes, we might"
That would be a fair threat of action.

I don't claim to understand lawyers, but I can recognise their scat.

 

[The Big Dog]

You may be right. It does sound more like the statement of someone who decides not to sue or press charges for some wrongdoing.

Like if he had vandalized the CNN building, they may say:
"We appreciate his remorse at his actions and have decided not to press charges at this time, but if anything changes, we might"
That would be a fair threat of action.

making fun of CNN in the first degree, how do you plead?

 

[Childlike Empress]

making fun of CNN

Apropos, this one is pretty good:

 

[d4m10n]

Apropos, this one is pretty good...

What's it like to worship a man so much?