CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[xjx388]

Could you please highlight the part where CNN policed thoughts?

Because as I understand it, HAS is still free to think what he wants and say what he wants.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

And what happens if he does? CNN might out him. It's that possibility which stops him from saying and doing what he wants.

I mean, it's right there in the statement.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If this incident involved anything but the internet, there would be no discussion here. Imagine if, instead, HAS had anonymously posted a hand-drawn cartoon on a physical bulletin board, and President Trump had shown his approval for it over the radio on his fireside chat. In this case, sharing the name of the artist would be completely uncontroversial.

This is nothing more than "Over here where I'm comfortable, we play by different rules." Just drop the moral relativism, stop feigning offense, and get over it.

 

[theprestige]

If this incident involved anything but the internet, there would be no discussion here. Imagine if, instead, HAS had anonymously posted a hand-drawn cartoon on a physical bulletin board, and President Trump had shown his approval for it over the radio on his fireside chat. In this case, sharing the name of the artist would be completely uncontroversial.

This is nothing more than "Over here where I'm comfortable, we play by different rules." Just drop the moral relativism, stop feigning offense, and get over it.

"In this hypothetical where I'm right, I'm right. Stop being wrong."

 

[d4m10n]

Not at all. My problem is not with CNN investigating this but what transpired after they found there was nothing there. There was no need to threaten the dude into not exercising his rights.

So far as I can tell, the only "right" he has relinquished (so far) is publishing to Reddit under his prior pseudonym. He remains perfectly free to post under his own name or under any new 'nym he cares to devise.

In exchange for HAS relinquishing the right to post under a specific pseudonym, KFILE relinquished the right to publish the results of his investigative journalism.

This is actually something of a bargain in exchange for keeping one's real world reputation intact. I cannot imagine any provost who would want to keep HanAssholeSolo on faculty.

 

[I Am The Scum]

"In this hypothetical where I'm right, I'm right. Stop being wrong."

I'll be as specific as I can.

1. The medium of the internet provides no significant moral distinction as to how the name of this individual is revealed, in comparison to more traditional mediums, such as paintings, TV, radio, etc.

2. As such, CNN would have been well within the professional bounds of journalistic ethics to reveal the guy's name, had they chosen to do so.

Are we disagreeing?

 

[johnny karate]

Really? How is being a member of church and a friend of the pastor endorsing the teachings of that church and pastor?

It's not. It's good you came around on that.

A pro wrestling GIF about Trump fake-clotheslining fake-CNN is "violence-advocating work of a white supremacist?" You have overly an overly sensitive violence-advocacy meter. The GIF itself has nothing to do with white-supremacy in any case. Someone saw a GIF, thought it was funny, then redid it and sent it to the Prez who tweeted it out. There is no association between HAS and Trump. Obviously that's the case because KFILE knows who HAS is and if there had been an association with Trump (if he was Trump's longtime friend, say) they would have jumped on it.

That gif wasn't some trending topic that was all over the place. It was created in the bowels of the internet, well out of the mainstream. Yet within the space of 3 days it ended up on the president's iPhone. That means either the president or someone close to him was frequenting a cyber-hangout for racists and white supremacists.

That's a clear association, and one that many media outlets "jumped on".

Not at all. In this case, however, there was nothing there. That's where it should have ended.

There is plenty there, as I've already explained. Your continued dismissal of it only serves to highlight your hypocrisy.

The subsequent threat to reveal his identity if he continued his posting is where the problem is for me.

Of course it is.

You just referenced a post where I laid it all out. You can refer to that if you like but I think it's OT here.

I saw where you laid out things Reverend Wright has said. I didn't see where you established that Obama nodded his head in agreement to any of it.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about this, but I disagree with you for the many reasons I've already stated. I do, for what it's worth, agree that our President shouldn't be Tweeting out these kinds of things and it's one of the many reasons I'm not a Trump fan. But that has nothing to do with the problem as I see it: CNN threatening to out a random dude if he doesn't change his ways.

Yes, I'm very much aware of the narrative you're pushing.

 

[johnny karate]

And what happens if he does? CNN might out him. It's that possibility which stops him from saying and doing what he wants.

I mean, it's right there in the statement.

How does people knowing your name prevent you from saying and doing what you want?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'll be as specific as I can.

1. The medium of the internet provides no significant moral distinction as to how the name of this individual is revealed, in comparison to more traditional mediums, such as paintings, TV, radio, etc.

2. As such, CNN would have been well within the professional bounds of journalistic ethics to reveal the guy's name, had they chosen to do so.

Are we disagreeing?

Not sure I follow the conclusion that if it was a poster from an anonymous person that Trump liked, the fact that the anonymous maker of the poster had made some other posters that were anti-Semitic would be newsworthy, can you explain?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is what happened, most likely. That's where the story should have ended.


They said, in effect and after HAS apologized and promised to stop, "we know who you are and if you continue your ugly behavior, we might just go ahead and publish your name." How is that not a threat?

The hilited should be how you know you're wrong, becuase you can't quote them, just your interpretation. Thanks.

 

[mgidm86]

It's not. It's good you came around on that.



That gif wasn't some trending topic that was all over the place. It was created in the bowels of the internet, well out of the mainstream. Yet within the space of 3 days it ended up on the president's iPhone. That means either the president or someone close to him was frequenting a cyber-hangout for racists and white supremacists.
That's a clear association, and one that many media outlets "jumped on".

It doesn't though. Any person on the internet could have let Trump or one of his people know about the GIF.

I think it's very odd that CNN made such a big deal about this. This is not the only, nor is it the worst anti-CNN video or imagery to be found online, not by a long shot.

Very strange. Why did they bother? You guys can argue the details if you want, I think it makes CNN look pathetic.

 

[d4m10n]

Why did they bother?

Presumably because American citizens who care deeply about freedom of the press (like myself) would like to know from whence the White House is sourcing their anti-media messaging.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[xjx388]

The hilited should be how you know you're wrong, becuase you can't quote them, just your interpretation. Thanks.

Why would I need to quote their statement again after it has been repeatedly posted here? But if you insist:
"We know who you are"
"And if you continue your ugly behavior"
"We might just go ahead and publish your name."

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.[

My "interpretation," is consistent with exactly what CNN said. Pretty straightforward paraphrase, actually.

What I don't understand is how anyone can interpret that as anything other than a threat that they'll out him if he continues to post.

 

[d4m10n]

What I don't understand is how anyone can interpret that as anything other than a threat that they'll out him if he continues to post.

Because an obvious alternative explanation exists. HAS begged KFILE not to publish his real name, they came to an agreement.

 

[johnny karate]

It doesn't though. Any person on the internet could have let Trump or one of his people know about the GIF.

So in your mind, Trump and his inner circle pore through every random meme they are sent, and then Trump just innocently tweeted this partucular gif? All within 36 hours of the gif being created?

Why don't you walk us through the logistics of how you think that would happen.

I think it's very odd that CNN made such a big deal about this. This is not the only, nor is it the worst anti-CNN video or imagery to be found online, not by a long shot.

Why did Trump bother? When the president tweets something, it's automatically news. CNN did their job.

Very strange. Why did they bother? You guys can argue the details if you want, I think it makes CNN look pathetic.

The only thing strange and pathetic is people trying so hard to vilify CNN while giving a pass to Trump. CNN must be held to a higher standard! The leader of the free world? Not so much.

 

[xjx388]

It's not. It's good you came around on that.

Clever, but that was a rhetorical question designed to indicate that I am incredulous that you don't see how attending church and being friends with the pastor indicates that one endorses that pastor and his church's views. You must be putting me on.

That gif wasn't some trending topic that was all over the place. It was created in the bowels of the internet, well out of the mainstream. Yet within the space of 3 days it ended up on the president's iPhone. That means either the president or someone close to him was frequenting a cyber-hangout for racists and white supremacists.

That's a clear association, and one that many media outlets "jumped on".

Perhaps. But that isn't even the point. Once no association could be established between HAS and Team Trump, then HAS becomes irrelevant. So why threaten to out the guy?

There is plenty there, as I've already explained. Your continued dismissal of it only serves to highlight your hypocrisy.

What is there is that the idea for the GIF probably came from a racist troll. However, there is no connection between the troll and the President (aside from the fact that they are both trolls ). Therefore, the identity of the troll is irrelevant and CNNs threat against him was wrong.

I saw where you laid out things Reverend Wright has said. I didn't see where you established that Obama nodded his head in agreement to any of it.

I can infer, having been in many churches in my life, that congregants who are long time members agree with and endorse the teachings of the church, whether or not they are caught on camera physically nodding their heads. Had Obama not been in agreement, I assume he is morally strong enough to stop attending and find another church he agrees with.

Yes, I'm very much aware of the narrative you're pushing.

That CNN was wrong? I hope so.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What I don't understand is how anyone can interpret that as anything other than a threat that they'll out him if he continues to post.

Because an obvious alternative explanation exists. HAS begged KFILE not to publish his real name, they came to an agreement.

Ninja'ed.

CNN head every right and should have published his name, but "they came to an agreement" where they wouldn't publish his name.

 

[d4m10n]

Bearing in mind that HanAssholeSolo openly encouraged doxing and vigilante violence, there is a strong argument to be made that KFILE was wrong to strike that particular bargain with HAS.

But let's go back to ****-talking CNN.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

Clever, but that was a rhetorical question designed to indicate that I am incredulous that you don't see how attending church and being friends with the pastor indicates that one endorses that pastor and his church's views. You must be putting me on.

Being friends with someone doesn't mean you automatically endorse everything they say, nor does being in the same room with them when they say it (something, by the way, you’ve yet to establish in this case).

Also, you’re conflating the views of the church with the views of one particular pastor. Which doesn’t matter anyway, because it’s ridiculous to assert that someone who attends a particular church must automatically endorses every point of view expressed by that church. Unless you also believe that every Christian must endorse genocide, rape, and slavery, since those things are endorsed by the Bible. But I’m pretty sure you don’t.

Perhaps. But that isn't even the point. Once no association could be established between HAS and Team Trump, then HAS becomes irrelevant. So why threaten to out the guy?

I don’t acknowledge that any such threat took place, but I get that it’s integral to your narrative. Reads to me like HAS threw himself at the feet of CNN and begged them not to reveal his identity, something which CNN had every right to do. CNN quite generously offered to protect his anonymity, despite the fact that they owed him nothing and he was foolish enough to not cover his tracks in the first place.

What is there is that the idea for the GIF probably came from a racist troll. However, there is no connection between the troll and the President (aside from the fact that they are both trolls ). Therefore, the identity of the troll is irrelevant and CNNs threat against him was wrong.

There was a connection. And it’s the president who made that connection when he put this guy in the spotlight by recklessly tweeting his gif all over the world.

I can infer, having been in many churches in my life, that congregants who are long time members agree with and endorse the teachings of the church, whether or not they are caught on camera physically nodding their heads. Had Obama not been in agreement, I assume he is morally strong enough to stop attending and find another church he agrees with.

Apparently, I was in error. You do think all Christians endorse genocide, rape, and slavery. Personally, that seems like a rather harsh judgement, but I respect your integrity on the matter.

 

[The Big Dog]

CNN came to an agreement with HAS???

totally and utterly false:

"CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user."

"This line is being misinterpreted. It was intended only to mean we made no agreement w/the man about his identity."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/5/15922214/cnnblackmail-reddit-trump-wrestling

Pure extortion.

 

[johnny karate]

CNN came to an agreement with HAS???

totally and utterly false:

"CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user."

"This line is being misinterpreted. It was intended only to mean we made no agreement w/the man about his identity."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/5/15922214/cnnblackmail-reddit-trump-wrestling

Pure extortion.

Extortion would necessitate an agreement. No agreement, no extortion.

Looks like CNN acted out of pure generosity of spirit.