CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[The Big Dog]

And it's CNN who are the bad guys. Funny how that works.

two wrongs don't make CNN right.

 

[Belz...]

two wrongs don't make CNN right.

You might have a point that CNN used blackmail, but not doxxing.

 

[d4m10n]

You might have a point that CNN used blackmail, but not doxxing.

Maybe under some colloquial (non-legal) sense of "blackmail" but probably not under the relevant statute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ziggurat]

two wrongs don't make CNN right.

More to the point, the left justifies so much government interference in voluntary economic activity on the basis that there's an asymmetry in power between most individuals and large corporations. So they really should be trying to hold CNN, a large and powerful corporation, to a higher standard than some random individual.

 

[The Big Dog]

You might have a point that CNN used blackmail, but not doxxing.

Why not both?

Curious how inflexible people are with internet slang....

It is important to note that a hacker may obtain an individual's dox without making the information public. A hacker may harvest a victim's information in order to break into their internet accounts, or to take over their social media accounts.[17]

or extortion

The victim may also be shown their details as proof that they have been doxed in order to intimidate them. Doxing is therefore a standard tactic of online harassment, and has been used by people associated with 4chan, the Gamergate controversy and anti-vaccine activists...

and CNN.

https://www.wired.com/2014/03/doxing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

 

[phiwum]

More to the point, the left justifies so much government interference in voluntary economic activity on the basis that there's an asymmetry in power between most individuals and large corporations. So they really should be trying to hold CNN, a large and powerful corporation, to a higher standard than some random individual.

You know, the above has some superficial features to suggest it is an argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, the above has some superficial features to suggest it is an argument.

You know, your response lacks even the superficial features of an argument.

 

[tyr_13]

This is special pleading.

Nope, unless one believes that shaming isn't ever a valid tactic. How about mockery? That one off the table too?

Shaming? Oh, it's more than that.

Oh? Like what?

More to the point, the left justifies so much government interference in voluntary economic activity on the basis that there's an asymmetry in power between most individuals and large corporations. So they really should be trying to hold CNN, a large and powerful corporation, to a higher standard than some random individual.

Well it's a good thing that they have been then.

 

[xjx388]

Maybe under some colloquial (non-legal) sense of "blackmail" but probably not under the relevant statute.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Where is KFILE located? Is it based in New York? If so, then the NY Coercion law is pretty clear that this is a crime. If it's based in Georgia, then Georgia has no such law and they are in the clear.

Where is the relevant jurisdiction? That's the important question. The next question is: is a prosecutor likely to do anything if it does break the law?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope, unless one believes that shaming isn't ever a valid tactic.

You didn't merely say shaming was sometimes a valid tactic. You made a claim about who deserved it, because reasons.

How about mockery? That one off the table too?

This isn't about mockery. Mockery doesn't require that somebody's identity be made public. You can mock someone's pseudonym just as easily.

Oh? Like what?

Like having your actual life put in jeopardy, for example. That's the sort of threat that doxxing enables.

 

[d4m10n]

Where is KFILE located? Is it based in New York? If so, then the NY Coercion law is pretty clear that this is a crime.

Reserving the right to publish the name of someone who produces highly newsworthy political commentary runs afoul of New York law? Color me skeptical. Need to see some case law on point.

 

[tyr_13]

You didn't merely say shaming was sometimes a valid tactic. You made a claim about who deserved it, because reasons.

Because of reasons like the doxxing of people simply for being Jewish, that I cited in the post you quoted from.

One cannot be against doxxing while defending people literally doxxed others to attack those who did not and be consistent or intellectually honest.

This isn't about mockery. Mockery doesn't require that somebody's identity be made public. You can mock someone's pseudonym just as easily.

So like shaming, it can be a valid tactic.

When?

Like having your actual life put in jeopardy, for example. That's the sort of threat that doxxing enables.

So the thing people are doing to CNN that CNN did not do. Great, you agree that CNN is acting to a higher standard than HAS.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because of reasons like the doxxing of people simply for being Jewish, that I cited in the post you quoted from.

You were talking about more than just HAS.

One cannot be against doxxing while defending people literally doxxed others to attack those who did not and be consistent or intellectually honest.

That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. I've never defended HAS for doxxing anyone. And saying he shouldn't be doxxed isn't a defense of his actions. It's a rather simple claim about what sort of behavior should be acceptable. Just like saying that police shouldn't torture a murderer isn't a defense of murderers. Saying that HAS shouldn't be doxxed is completely consistent with the very simple, completely intellectually honest position that nobody should be doxxed. And obviously so. That you try to characterize this as some sort of dishonesty really only reflects on that quality in yourself.

 

[tyr_13]

You were talking about more than just HAS.

This means that you want me to list other reasons that would justify shamming people in other hypothetical situations, or my argument is to you a special pleading. How long a list would you like, that you may have the finest choice of cherries to pick in order to avoid the rest of my points?

That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. I've never defended HAS for doxxing anyone. And saying he shouldn't be doxxed isn't a defense of his actions. It's a rather simple claim about what sort of behavior should be acceptable. Just like saying that police shouldn't torture a murderer isn't a defense of murderers. Saying that HAS shouldn't be doxxed is completely consistent with the very simple, completely intellectually honest position that nobody should be doxxed. And obviously so. That you try to characterize this as some sort of dishonesty really only reflects on that quality in yourself.

I didn't say you, and intentionally used the more exact one (which is ironic, because I made my statement more exact by using a term that is broader).

And it's a good thing HAS hasn't been doxxed then, and CNN continues to hold to a higher standard than HAS or his supporters, right? Do you hold them to any standard at all on this subject?

It is quickly becoming clear that this is yet again just an excuse for you to shade 'liberals' in roundabout ways while dancing around anything that might be critical of those attacking liberals (like HAS and his doxxing supporters). You're literally attacking CNN and liberals for things they have not done while ignoring the same things being done by those attacking CNN and liberals.

That is dishonesty, and this time I have no problem using the word 'you'.

 

[d4m10n]

Saying that HAS shouldn't be doxxed is completely consistent with the very simple, completely intellectually honest position that nobody should be doxxed.

Suppose someone anonymously and publicly sends credible death threats to you and those you love. Would it be okay for Kfile to provide the police with his or her real name?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Minoosh]

And it's true: ridicule can be quite effective, when it's well done (yours wasn't). But done well or poorly, it's irrational.

Why irrational?

ETA: I wouldn't have bumped this thread but it was already at the top of the sub-forum. Which amazes me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose someone anonymously and publicly sends credible death threats to you and those you love. Would it be okay for Kfile to provide the police with his or her real name?

Do you really not understand the differences here? A credible death threat is a crime. Nobody to my knowledge has alleged any credible death threats by HAS. While I consider doxxing reprehensible, it is not, as of now, a crime. Furthermore, giving the police the name of a criminal suspect isn't itself doxxing either.

Either you didn't understand these obvious differences, or you knew but decided to make a dishonest argument anyways. Neither option is a good one.

Why irrational?

Because it cannot be refuted with rational argument. You cannot say, don't laugh at that, it's not funny because x disproves y. You can only stop people from laughing at what they find funny by threatening them. But threats aren't logic, they are just force.

Is this a surprise to you? Is this a mystery? Do you not understand how humor operates?

 

[d4m10n]

Do you really not understand the differences here? A credible death threat is a crime. Nobody to my knowledge has alleged any credible death threats by HAS. While I consider doxxing reprehensible, it is not, as of now, a crime.

So your position is not quite that no one should have their identity revealed without their consent, but rather that no law-abiding citizen should have their identity revealed in that way.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ziggurat]

This means that you want me to list other reasons that would justify shamming people in other hypothetical situations

You weren't talking about hypothetical situations either. You referred to actual cases, plural. Can you not even keep track of your own posts?

And it's a good thing HAS hasn't been doxxed then, and CNN continues to hold to a higher standard than HAS or his supporters, right? Do you hold them to any standard at all on this subject?

Of course CNN should be held to a higher standard. Their power and influence demands it. And I can't hold HAS to any standard, since I have no leverage against him. I think it's bad when individuals doxx people, and HAS is wrong for doing so, but he's not peculiar or unique in doing so.

It is quickly becoming clear that this is yet again just an excuse for you to shade 'liberals' in roundabout ways

Boo hoo. Considering how often you shade conservatives directly and openly, these are crocodile tears. These are the forum rules, in practice: insult an entire side, and everything is fair game. And I've been mild, compared to what your side routinely does here.

while dancing around anything that might be critical of those attacking liberals (like HAS and his doxxing supporters).

It's not my job to express whatever level of outrage you demand. I've never said one word in defense of HAS or any of his supporters for doxxing anyone.

You're literally attacking CNN and liberals for things they have not done

No, actually, I have not. I have only attacked CNN for what CNN has done. I never claimed CNN doxxed anyone, only that they threatened to do so. And they quite clearly did.

That is dishonesty, and this time I have no problem using the word 'you'.

Your hypocrisy makes the accusation irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

So your position is not quite that no one should have their identity revealed without their consent, but rather that no law-abiding citizen should have their identity revealed in that way.

Law enforcement requires identifying suspects to the police. And actual criminals forfeit their right to anonymity. The cost of lost anonymity is much lower than the benefit of effective law enforcement.

As for non-criminals, there may well be some scenarios which justify involuntary public identification of a non-public figure. But even there, the justifications would primarily be local in scope, and the exposure should be commensurately local. Outing someone on a national scale for making an insulting video doesn't even come close.