• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CNN Doxxes a gif maker

Cleon said:
Your sources are wrong. Doxxing = publicly releasing the information. That's literally the dictionary definition.

My five sources beat your three sources. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Althought if you remove one "x" then urban dictionary says the meaning is different. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxing

This is one of the reasons I generally avoid the Urban Dictionary or any crowd sourced but not crowd edited dictionaries. You end up with an alternate, one letter different, spelling being given different meanings on different pages, when all the other dictionaries simply state them as spelling variations.

BTW - notice how the activity graph shows the page counts for both pages going through the roof right now.
 
Which is why I went for both crowd-sourced and "traditional" dictionaries. Unfortunately, OED is behind a paywall, but judging by the page on Grammarist I suspect their definition mirrors the others.
 
magellan said:
I think everyone who condones CNNs behaviour in this case should post their real name and adress in this thread.

I mean you aren't saying anything you wouldn't say in real life right? Also this is just a single thread in a niche subforum on a niche site. So it's nowhere near the same ballpark as an international media organisation threatening to publish your name.

But for some wierd reason i suspect not many people will follow this invitation. But I am quite curious what the excuses are.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the proper analogy be closer to me, working under my government name, trying to dox you?

Regardless, I see no reason to bother with either - I see no reason to care who you are aside from "magellan", and frankly, anything I felt would be potentially harmful to me, I simply would not discuss on the internet at all. And I'd expect anyone with the slightest savvy to do the same.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
As a method to fuel one's own wealth at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Also, I meant to proscribe by moral argument. As in telling people the right thing to do is dox the bad people and leave the good people alone and hoping that will produce results.
 
Wow, long thread with lots of hand-wringing, with lots of little details that don't really change much at all.

He was not doxxed, at least unless one uses their own special and useless definition of the word (not unlike some extreme people on the left do, which the people advancing the alternate definition here deride). CNN was heavy handed, and made this a bigger deal than it needed to be. Is there really not enough of substance to talk about, or are the news haters really that rabid for every little attack they can make?

Oh....
 
BobTheCoward said:
As a method to fuel one's own wealth at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals have nothing to do with wealth accumulation. And the prohibition on murder hardly qualifies under your blinkered view either. I do not contest that some laws serve such a purpose, but it is nonsensical to assert that they all do.
 
magellan said:
I think everyone who condones CNNs behaviour in this case should post their real name and adress in this thread.

I mean you aren't saying anything you wouldn't say in real life right? Also this is just a single thread in a niche subforum on a niche site. So it's nowhere near the same ballpark as an international media organisation threatening to publish your name.

But for some wierd reason i suspect not many people will follow this invitation. But I am quite curious what the excuses are.
Click to expand...

Do you think CNN was going to publish his address? Do they often do that?

As others have said, HAS did something apparently newsworthy by the standards of the day. CNN had every right to publish his name and I don't know that it would have been unethical in the least to do so. They've done him a favor by not doing so, and hence pointing out that they could change their minds is not blackmail or a threat, in my opinion.
 
Ziggurat said:
That doesn't make sense. Why should the president's actions, rather than your own, justify making your identity public? That's a completely irrational standard.



Sure, your standard isn't hypocritical. But it is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time that someone else's actions make one newsworthy. A killer's wife cannot expect anonymity, the victim of a hit and run likewise. If the president mentions me in a speech, then this fact will be reported. Jodi Foster was relevant to stories about Hinckley, and she would likely have been so even if not a celebrity beforehand.
 
Lots of whining about the use of the term doxxed in the headline.

Ok I will cheerfully ask the mods to change the title to "CNN blackmails some gif maker."

Are the pedants and the actual skeptics in agreement? As part of the later, I am on board.
 
The Big Dog said:
Lots of whining about the use of the term doxxed in the headline.

Ok I will cheerfully ask the mods to change the title to "CNN blackmails some gif maker."

Are the pedants and the actual skeptics in agreement? As part of the later, I am on board.
Click to expand...
I linked to the federal blackmail statute above. Have you done any homework on that yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom