CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[mgidm86]

I'm not really concerned with the legality of this.

I believe BobTheCoward is correct in that such correspondence to the gov is public. I see disclaimers for other subjects and events that say comments as well as contact information may be published. I'm not positive either way, but it seems to be the general rule.

I'm more bothered that they did seemingly as intimidation. However, if there are other similar instances of comments being shared in the same fashion then I will curb my outrage.

Right now, I think it's bad form and a bit spooky as well, to say the least.

I have curbed my outrage.

This email PDF release is being discussed in the "Trump Presidency" thread with links and stuff. Releasing comments and emails like this in PDF form is not unusual as far as I can tell.

Figures.

 

[uke2se]

I have curbed my outrage.

This email PDF release is being discussed in the "Trump Presidency" thread with links and stuff. Releasing comments and emails like this in PDF form is not unusual as far as I can tell.

Figures.

With full name and contact information?

 

[xjx388]

If a person or organization goes through all the steps to "doxx" someone, but doesn't actually publicly release the info, is that now not "doxxing?" Is public release the key? What do you call it when they use the info obtained to intimidate someone into doing something under threat of public release?

 

[d4m10n]

If a person or organization goes through all the steps to "doxx" someone, but doesn't actually publicly release the info, is that now not "doxxing?" Is public release the key? What do you call it when they use the info obtained to intimidate someone into doing something under threat of public release?

Doing "something" such as?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If a person or organization goes through all the steps to "doxx" someone, but doesn't actually publicly release the info, is that now not "doxxing?" ?

Wait what, is there some world where what was doxxing before ?

 

[xjx388]

Wait what, is there some world where what was doxxing before ?

So call it threatening to dox. They collected all the information and threatened to dox the dude. If it were a hacker who did it, I'm sure we'd all have no problem using that terminology. I'm not sure why it being CNN makes it now, "journalism."

 

[xjx388]

Doing "something" such as?

Let's say a pro-Trump hacker gets dox on some Hilary supporter who made a mean meme about Trump. The hacker says, "remove that picture, stop making those memes and make a full public apology or I'll dox you." We can all agree that would be wrong, yes?

 

[d4m10n]

So call it threatening to dox. They collected all the information and threatened to dox the dude. If it were a hacker who did it, I'm sure we'd all have no problem using that terminology. I'm not sure why it being CNN makes it now, "journalism."

What if CNN had made no threats and simply stated the guy's name?

Something like this:

The original satirical video was posted to a popular online group for Trump supporters by Jayden K. Smith of Murfreesboro, TN. Smith does not appear to have any institutional connection to the Republican Party or conservative PACs.

Would you still characterize it as doxing rather than journalism?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What if CNN had made no threats and simply stated the guy's name?

Something like this:

Would you still characterize it as doxing rather than journalism?

Isn't that question implicitly, but obviously, answered in the posts you're replying to? If they skipped the "threatening" step in "threatening to dox" and move directly to the "doxxing" step, the the doxxing would be doxxing. Doxxing does not require that you first threaten the person with doxxing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So call it threatening to dox. They collected all the information and threatened to dox the dude.

That's a start, except AFAIK the "threat" only exists in your head.

If it were a hacker who did it, I'm sure we'd all have no problem using that terminology. I'm not sure why it being CNN makes it now, "journalism."

If a hacker ... did what ? Used google ? The president tweeted a video. CNN did research and located the GIF the video was based on, and found the guy who created the GIF, and tried to talk to him. IE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity.

He doxxed himself ?

CNN is 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.

CNN did him a kindness, as outlined above. Were is the evidence CNN coerced or threatened him into making an apology ?

 

[The Big Dog]

That's a start, except AFAIK the "threat" only exists in your head.



If a hacker ... did what ? Used google ? The president tweeted a video. CNN did research and located the GIF the video was based on, and found the guy who created the GIF, and tried to talk to him. IE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity.

He doxxed himself ?

CNN is 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.

CNN did him a kindness, as outlined above. Were is the evidence CNN coerced or threatened him into making an apology ?

The next line in the article you quoted, the very next line says:

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Set off in its own little one line "paragraph.'

Deception by omission.

 

[xjx388]

What if CNN had made no threats and simply stated the guy's name?

Something like this:


Would you still characterize it as doxing rather than journalism?

In that case, I would characterize it as a really bad attempt at either since Jayden K Smith is a Facebook hoax . . .

But more seriously, the question for me is, how important is it that the creator of a meme be outed? Is that really newsworthy? Does CNN spend a lot of their journalistic efforts at outing creators of memes they deem offensive? If they did it in an "equal opportunity," kind of way, I'd think it's rather dumb waste of their resources but it could be seen as "investigative journalism."

But that's not what we have here. They identified him and threatened to make the info public unless he complied with their demands. Doxxing or not, it's not journalism either.

 

[d4m10n]

But more seriously, the question for me is, how important is it that the creator of a meme be outed?

Hard to say, without knowing who he is and whether he has any professional links to relevant political groups.

Is that really newsworthy?

See above. His or her identity may be newsworthy, or it may not. Right now, only KFILE really knows.

Does CNN spend a lot of their journalistic efforts at outing creators of memes they deem offensive?

If the memes are being shared by the Trump campaign/administration, they aren't merely offensive, they are highly newsworthy.

If they did it in an "equal opportunity," kind of way, I'd think it's rather dumb waste of their resources but it could be seen as "investigative journalism."

Not sure what you mean here. Like if they were to openly name the people making memes for other world leaders?

They identified him and threatened to make the info public unless he complied with their demands.

I'm not seeing a list of demands.

 

[xjx388]

That's a start, except AFAIK the "threat" only exists in your head.

No, the threat was in the "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." Pretty explicit threat right there.

If a hacker ... did what ? Used google ? The president tweeted a video. CNN did research and located the GIF the video was based on, and found the guy who created the GIF, and tried to talk to him. IE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.

Do they do this with meaningless GIFs a lot? Is the creator of one specific meme newsworthy when there are countless others? I get it though: this meme was about CNN. It was less "investigative journalism" and more "vengeance is mine."

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity.

He doxxed himself ?

No, I can agree no doxxing happened. But clearly the threat of doxxing happened.

CNN is 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.

CNN did him a kindness, as outlined above. Were is the evidence CNN coerced or threatened him into making an apology ?

A kindness? Only if you omit the last sentence, quoted above.

And what ugly behavior did he engage in? That GIF was it? I can find a hell of a lot worse about CNN and certain of it's employees . . . why don't they threaten those people? The damn gif wasn't even offensive. They just can't take a joke.

 

[novaphile]

And what ugly behavior did he engage in? That GIF was it?

erm... Did you miss the part of the conversation, where it was explained that HAS has a history of posting very offensive racist material?

 

[uke2se]

And what ugly behavior did he engage in? That GIF was it? I can find a hell of a lot worse about CNN and certain of it's employees . . . why don't they threaten those people? The damn gif wasn't even offensive. They just can't take a joke.

You mean like the image with photos of CNN employees with a star of david to denote their Jewish heritage?

Yeah, he made that one too.

 

[d4m10n]

Isn't that doxing, though?

 

[plague311]

No, the threat was in the "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." Pretty explicit threat right there.

*********. Threat. Ever. Seriously. Plus, the article wasn't released before the guy called and confirmed who he was and that he did it. You guys are mind readers? You know that CNN said to the individual, before the article was released, "If you do this, we'll release your info"? Can someone link me to the evidence you have that confirms that? Because if not, it sounds like a meme went viral that the president retweeted, or in other way brought attention to, and CNN was digging around trying to find out who caught the Orange Anus's attention. This guy realized it was him, had some fear of backlash if his name were brought out. It's not on CNN to keep his name private. They don't have to do ****. If, whatever his name is, cornhole, wouldn't have brought the limelight to him, then nothing would have been known about him.

I'm just glad I'm not a pussy like this guy. If I say something, I'll stand by it. Whatever it is.

Do they do this with meaningless GIFs a lot? Is the creator of one specific meme newsworthy when there are countless others? I get it though: this meme was about CNN. It was less "investigative journalism" and more "vengeance is mine."

Ah, there's your problem. You're completely...confused right off the bat. It wasn't a meaningless .gif the moment the POTUS tweeted it out\brought attention to it. Then, even according to the white house, it became a presidential statement. Then again, reading through the completely ********** up way you, and TBD have managed to rationalize the presidents behavior, I can't say I'm shocked you didn't catch the glaring difference between the two.

No, I can agree no doxxing happened. But clearly the threat of doxxing happened.

Sure it did. I've never understood "the threat" of being doxxed. Why can't bitches just man up to what they post? Why does he post so many things he won't claim when the time comes? I think it's hilarious to see internet bullies brought to their knees.

And what ugly behavior did he engage in? That GIF was it? I can find a hell of a lot worse about CNN and certain of it's employees . . . why don't they threaten those people? The damn gif wasn't even offensive. They just can't take a joke.

If the *********** .gif was the only thing do you think that pussy would be afraid of being doxxed? If you want to stick your head in the sand, fine; however, other people can see through most of this ********. If the ugly behavior he engaged in started and stopped with just that .gif then I doubt he'd be cringing in fear of his name getting out. Do you? Try thinking it over.

 

[uke2se]

Isn't that doxing, though?

Depends on which definition you're using: the real one or the Trump apologist one.

 

[The Big Dog]

Depends on which definition you're using: the real one or the Trump apologist one.

I posted three third party definitions of the word, only a CNN apologist would assert that the word has been calcified in the, what, a decade since the word was invented?

Sheer nonsense, albeit a cunning diversion from the substance of CNN's reprehensible conduct. That was the whole point right?