CNN Doxxes a gif maker

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?

I didn't say anything about anti-semitism.

I'm criticizing the fake outrage we'ere seeing from the "free speech" crowd over referring to someone by their name. From what I can tell, CNN's actions here, even if they had published the guy's name, would have been neither immoral or unprofessional. Do you disagree? And if so, why?
 
I didn't say anything about anti-semitism.

I'm criticizing the fake outrage we'ere seeing from the "free speech" crowd over referring to someone by their name. From what I can tell, CNN's actions here, even if they had published the guy's name, would have been neither immoral or unprofessional. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

Ok, you did not answer my question about why that was newsworthy.

answering your question, yes I absolutely agree that CNN's conduct was unprofessional and unethical. And you don't have to take my word for it, read the Vox article I posted earlier.

CNN's conduct in reserving rights to expose the guy if he writes stuff in the future that they disagree with is ridiculously unprofessional.
 
Extortion would necessitate an agreement. No agreement, no extortion.

Looks like CNN acted out of pure generosity of spirit.

The same generosity of spirit with which you are interpreting CNNs actions here. You are, of course, free to be so generous but it says something when even Vox basically agrees with my "narrative."
 
CNN's conduct in reserving rights to expose the guy if he writes stuff in the future that they disagree with is ridiculously unprofessional.


CNN didn't mention anything about mere disagreement. You are reading that in, for some reason.




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


Does it stop him from creating a new Reddit user i.d. and going right back to posting his notions of African racial inferiority?

Does it stop him from posting his political opinions under his own name, e.g. Facebook?

So far as I can tell, CNN's "threats" can only prevent him from using one particular handle, and perhaps not even that if the Twitter account is genuine.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
The same generosity of spirit with which you are interpreting CNNs actions here.

It's not my interpretation; it's TBD's. He's the one arguing there was no agreement. I just followed that argument to its logical conclusion.

You are, of course, free to be so generous but it says something when even Vox basically agrees with my "narrative."

What does it say? And why is it significant?
 
Last edited:
What does it say? And why is it significant?
It says exactly what I've been saying:

Then the article got to two incredibly alarming paragraphs:

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.
The two paragraphs, as multiple journalists (including myself) pointed out, read a lot like CNN essentially threatening to dox someone — meaning reveal a person’s private identity — if that person didn’t behave as CNN demanded...A plain reading of CNN’s article, however, contradicts what the network and Kaczynski are saying. If CNN really intended to withhold HanAssholeSolo’s information regardless of what he did, then why didn’t the news organization say it was withholding his private information simply because he’s a private citizen? Why did it go on to add all the conditions about his behavior? And why did it say it could release the private information with an explicit condition tied to his behavior?

Personally, if I reported this story, it would have been pretty straightforward: “CNN is not publishing ‘HanAssholeSolo’s’ name because he is a private citizen.” Period. The rest of the information in that paragraph is unnecessary, because a media organization simply shouldn’t release a private citizen’s personal information. He shouldn’t have his private information threatened just because the president picked up one of his Reddit ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, which he made with the expectation that he would be kept anonymous. (Though it is a truly bizarre turn of events that it’s even possible to write this sentence.)

In journalism, there is a clear line between public and private figures. Public figures are held to a higher standard — since they represent not just themselves but their offices, their industries, and so on. But private figures are given a veil of privacy, since it’s not really in the public interest to get some random person’s private information.

It's significant because it's clear that many journalists have a problem with what CNN did here -even a liberal-leaning site like Vox. And that means it isn't my "narrative," I'm trying to push here or that its some conservative only narrative.
 
It's significant because it's clear that many journalists have a problem with what CNN did here -even a liberal-leaning site like Vox. And that means it isn't my "narrative," I'm trying to push here or that its some conservative only narrative.

Or it could mean that these media outlets took the bait and are now complicit in the Right's agenda to offer as much distraction as possible to shift the focus away from Trump's deplorable behavior.
 
Yeah but the positive claim is usually the one requiring evidence.
Nonsense. Neither the claim that there is no association nor they claim that there is an association is privileged. It's reasonable to say that they association, if any, is unclear.

Seems to me that there is strong evidence of some association, but I interpret that word weakly enough to include that Trump or someone in his group was influenced by HAS. That's very likely, but a fairly weak conclusion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
We know that KFILE and HAS spoke on the phone prior to the infamous "threat" to report the story about who exactly is producing political messaging for the White House.

Ever wonder how that conversation might have gone...?

***VERSION A***

HAS: Oh god, you've found me. I never thought you'd find me.

KFILE: That's right. And now we are going to crush you. Your name will become synonymous with African genocide throughout the world. People will make hashtags about you. The internet outrage machine will go full Justine Sacco.

HAS: Is there anything I can do to make it right?

KFILE: We have a list of demands.

***VERSION B***

HAS: I've posted an extensive statement of apology, taken down all my offending posts, and I will not repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. I'd really appreciate it if this story didn't get any bigger. I'm afraid people might retaliate against me and my family.

KFILE: Fair enough, we will let it go. But if you make yourself newsworthy again, don't expect journalists to give you a pass.

HAS: [muttering] Lugenpresse...

KFILE: What was that?

HAS: Have a nice day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nonsense. Neither the claim that there is no association nor they claim that there is an association is privileged. It's reasonable to say that they association, if any, is unclear.

Seems to me that there is strong evidence of some association, but I interpret that word weakly enough to include that Trump or someone in his group was influenced by HAS. That's very likely, but a fairly weak conclusion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The claim that there is no association -as in, they know each other or even just that Trump followed HAS on reddit- is based on the fact that no evidence of an association has been presented. We can't assume an association.

We also can't assume there is no such association but we can apply a bit of reasoning: The chances of there being an association between Trump and a random internet poster is very low. This is borne out by CNNs initial investigation and their decision not to release his name.
 
The claim that there is no association -as in, they know each other or even just that Trump followed HAS on reddit- is based on the fact that no evidence of an association has been presented. We can't assume an association.

We also can't assume there is no such association but we can apply a bit of reasoning: The chances of there being an association between Trump and a random internet poster is very low. This is borne out by CNNs initial investigation and their decision not to release his name.

And this is all of course a red herring. Trump’s personal association to HAS is irrelevant. It’s Trump’s and his inner circle’s association with the dark corners of the internet where racists and white supremacists gather to spew their venom that is problematic.
 
And this is all of course a red herring. Trump’s personal association to HAS is irrelevant. It’s Trump’s and his inner circle’s association with the dark corners of the internet where racists and white supremacists gather to spew their venom that is problematic.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that Team Trump has someone who monitors r/The_Donald. It's even more reasonable that someone outside Team Trump who has contacts inside does. Such monitoring doesn't imply that they agree with the venom.
 
Does it stop him from creating a new Reddit user i.d. and going right back to posting his notions of African racial inferiority?

Does it stop him from posting his political opinions under his own name, e.g. Facebook?

Reposting these questions for xjx388.

Very interested to hear what exactly CNN's so-called threats are preventing HAS from doing.
 
Last edited:
I think it's perfectly reasonable that Team Trump has someone who monitors r/The_Donald. It's even more reasonable that someone outside Team Trump who has contacts inside does. Such monitoring doesn't imply that they agree with the venom.

And what's your evidence that they are "monitoring" it versus wallowing in it ?
 
I think it's perfectly reasonable that Team Trump has someone who monitors r/The_Donald. It's even more reasonable that someone outside Team Trump who has contacts inside does. Such monitoring doesn't imply that they agree with the venom.

I like how you used the word “monitor” as if it’s merely a threat-assessment being done in some kind of official capacity.

They aren’t just “monitoring” these scumbags. They are actively promoting them by sharing their hilarious memes with the world.

It would be like if a social media platform for ISIS was being monitored, but the president really liked a video of a water-skiing squirrel that they made, and figured it would be cool to go ahead and tweet it.

I don’t condone anything ISIS says or does, but hey, this video they made is hilarious!
 
Anyone want to talk about HanA**holeSolo's views on using the internet to identify and dox people whom he wants to see punished? Here they are:


Date: Fri Mar 10, 2017 06:26 UTC

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5yfdiz/_/deqsyat/


Put his info on 4chan and let nature take its course


Date: Fri Apr 21, 2017 06:33 PDT

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/66teli/_/dgl4tmp/


Posted a snapshot of this article on 4chan, let the games begin.


Date: Fri Apr 21, 2017 04:32 PDT

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/66pehn/_/dgkzf16/


You should get 4chan on the case and identify all these worthless ****ers and publicize them.


Date: Tue Apr 25, 2017 04:28 PDT

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/67juot/_/dgr28mj/


It's on 4chan now..hopefully they'll identify the laundromat and rail the **** out of them.


Date: Mon May 8, 2017 07:12 PDT

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6a266b/_/dhb948o/


Posted on 4chan, hopefully they find, doxx and **** up the ******** doing this.



Date: Fri May 26, 2017 08:21 PDT

URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan/comments/6dl4vh/_/di3l3kn/


Forever doxxed on 4chan


Seems like a nice fellow, this guy, one who undoubtedly deserves the deonotological protection of the emergent social norm against doxing.

Am I right?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom