CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[xjx388]

That depends on who he (or she) turns out to be, obviously.

If he's a KKK grand dragon, that is surely newsworthy.

If he's a middle-schooler, likely not.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

OK, so you do some investigation, find out that it's just some random dude who isn't political -he did it for ***** and giggles. So just drop that angle, right? Focus on the stupidity of an American President tweeting out juvenile videos. The dude is irrelevant.

 

[d4m10n]

That version of events may well be pretty much what actually happened.

 

[johnny karate]

OK, so you do some investigation, find out that it's just some random dude who isn't political -he did it for ***** and giggles. So just drop that angle, right? Focus on the stupidity of an American President tweeting out juvenile videos. The dude is irrelevant.

Why as a conservative do you feel people need to protected from their own decisions and behavior?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why as a conservative do you feel people need to protected from their own decisions and behavior?

Oy vey.

He just said that the doxxee was irrelevant to anything that could be considered remotely newsworthy, but fantastic loaded question ignoring that plain fact.

 

[johnny karate]

Oy vey.

He just said that the doxxee was irrelevant to anything that could be considered remotely newsworthy, but fantastic loaded question ignoring that plain fact.

Well, he asserted it wasn't newsworthy, but that doesn't make it so. And as it turns out, people in the business of deciding what is and what isn't newsworthy disagree with that assertion.

However, regardless of whether it's newsworthy or not, had this person not posted any of this dumb, offensive stuff online for the whole world to see in the first place, none of this ever would have happened.

So the question remains: Why as a conservative do you feel people need to be protected from their own decisions and behavior?

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, he asserted it wasn't newsworthy, but that doesn't make it so. And as it turns out, people in the business of deciding what is and what isn't newsworthy disagree with that assertion.

However, regardless of whether it's newsworthy or not, had this person not posted any of this dumb, offensive stuff online for the whole world to see in the first place, none of this ever would have happened.

So the question remains: Why as a conservative do you feel people need to be protected from their own decisions and behavior?

The people in the business of deciding what is newsworthy decided this nobody on reddit's identity was relevant? Huh, I am going to go right ahead and point out that you are wrong given the fact that "people in the business" have declared CNN's conduct completely inappropriate and unethical, which you would know if you read the plethora of articles linked in this thread.

And of course the nobody's "offensive posts" on reddit were irrelevant to the gif, which inspired the silly wrestling video that trump subsequently posted and which was "offensive" to only the most dedicated fanbois.

As far as your "question" (which is as "when did you stop beating your wife" as we are ever likely to see) CNN said that they were not releasing his name because he took down all his posts and apologized, but were reserving the right to disclose it if he posted something that displeased them, but then the very next day said they were withholding his name for his safety.

So there is your answer: his "safety."

 

[johnny karate]

The people in the business of deciding what is newsworthy decided this nobody on reddit's identity was relevant?

His identity? No, because they never revealed it.

Huh, I am going to go right ahead and point out that you are wrong given the fact that "people in the business" have declared CNN's conduct completely inappropriate and unethical, which you would know if you read the plethora of articles linked in this thread.

The question was whether or not it was newsworthy, not whether or not CNN's handling of the story was ethical.

And of course the nobody's "offensive posts" on reddit were irrelevant to the gif, which inspired the silly wrestling video that trump subsequently posted and which was "offensive" to only the most dedicated fanbois.

Actually, considering that the Trump administration has many uncomfortable connections to racists and anti-Semites, that fact that Trump acquired this gif from someone espousing racist and anti-Semitic sentiments makes it even more newsworthy than the fact that the president tweeted it.

As far as your "question" (which is as "when did you stop beating your wife" as we are ever likely to see) CNN said that they were not releasing his name because he took down all his posts and apologized, but were reserving the right to disclose it if he posted something that displeased them, but then the very next day said they were withholding his name for his safety.

So there is your answer: his "safety."

So you as conservative believe that if someone does something that imperils their own safety, then as a society we have an obligation to protect them from the consequences of their actions?

 

[The Big Dog]

So you as conservative believe that if someone does something that imperils their own safety, then as a society we have an obligation to protect them from the consequences of their actions?

I like when questions start out saying "So you as a conservative" and then are followed by this wildly overbroad "question" that has nothing to do with my answer.

My answer is as a member of iSkep is: NO, as I just pointed out CNN said they were withholding it in this instance for his safety, I guess there are a ton of vicious violent liberals around, according to CNN.

Looking forward to your next super serious "question"!

Here i will get you started: "So you as conservative believe (insert over the top "question that is really a strawman here)...."

Ought to be groovy!

 

[xjx388]

That version of events may well be pretty much what actually happened.

Up until CNN made a statement saying they aren't identifying him unless he decides to continue his nasty ways. Why make that statement if it isn't to intimidate the guy into behaving? It certainly isn't reporting something newsworthy at that point.

 

[johnny karate]

I like when questions start out saying "So you as a conservative" and then are followed by this wildly overbroad "question" that has nothing to do with my answer.

Conservatives typically have an ideology of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

I'm just trying to to understand your position regarding this incident in the context of that ideology.

My answer is as a member of iSkep is: NO, as I just pointed out CNN said they were withholding it in this instance for his safety, I guess there are a ton of vicious violent liberals around, according to CNN.

So if you don't believe this person deserves any special protection from the consequences of his own actions, then why are you so outraged on his behalf?

 

[johnny karate]

Up until CNN made a statement saying they aren't identifying him unless he decides to continue his nasty ways. Why make that statement if it isn't to intimidate the guy into behaving? It certainly isn't reporting something newsworthy at that point.

In point of fact, they didn't make that statement.

 

[d4m10n]

Up until CNN made a statement saying they aren't identifying him unless he decides to continue his nasty ways.

You are not charitably or accurately reading what they actually wrote. What they did was avoid publicly committing to actively preserving his anonymity. You may well believe they have an ethical obligation to help him remain anonymous, but they obviously do not agree.

 

[xjx388]

Why as a conservative do you feel people need to protected from their own decisions and behavior?

I don't. However, CNN isn't the internet police. They don't generally investigate the identities of online racists. It's simple: if the story (HAS's identity) is newsworthy then report the story. If it isn't, then don't act like they have some moral authority over a random internet troll.

 

[d4m10n]

A truly *random* internet troll probably doesn't produce political satire for the White House.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't. However, CNN isn't the internet police.

And you aren't the media police. If this guy and the president both get a pass from you to engage in objectionable behavior, why doesn't CNN?

They don't generally investigate the identities of online racists. It's simple: if the story (HAS's identity) is newsworthy then report the story. If it isn't, then don't act like they have some moral authority over a random internet troll.

They didn't report his identity, so I guess they decided that aspect of the story wasn't newsworthy.

 

[Vermonter]

From the CNN article:

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

This is a very clear threat to dox unless the Redditor complies and submits.

 

[The Big Dog]

Conservatives typically have an ideology of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

I'm just trying to to understand your position regarding this incident in the context of that ideology.



So if you don't believe this person deserves any special protection from the consequences of his own actions, then why are you so outraged on his behalf?

Oh man, love it!

I said that CNN concluded that they had to specially protect him for his own safety!

Now I and so, so, so many other lovers of free expression are outraged that the scumbags at CNN decided to threaten someone.

So (giggle) as a poster on iSkep are you outraged that CNN is extorting this nobody?

 

[Ziggurat]

A truly *random* internet troll probably doesn't produce political satire for the White House.

Why not? Is there a law or something?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh man, love it!

I said that CNN concluded that they had to specially protect him for his own safety!

I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point, so let's start over.

I asked the following question:

So you as conservative believe that if someone does something that imperils their own safety, then as a society we have an obligation to protect them from the consequences of their actions?

You answered in the negative, and then I asked you this follow-up question:

So if you don't believe this person deserves any special protection from the consequences of his own actions, then why are you so outraged on his behalf?

An answer would be appreciated, please.

Now I and so, so, so many other lovers of free expression are outraged that the scumbags at CNN decided to threaten someone.

Luckily for you then that this person is still free to express himself.

So (giggle) as a poster on iSkep are you outraged that CNN is extorting this nobody?

Extortion? That's a criminal offense. I haven't actually been following the story that closely. Have charges been filed yet?

 

[Belz...]

Conservatives typically have an ideology of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

That's a misrepresentation. They're very much in favour of big government interference when it suits their purposes.