CNN Doxxes a gif maker

[d4m10n]

CNN has appeared to abandon news of any sort and instead is doxxing some nobody who made a funny GIF.

Do the folks in the anti-doxing crowd condemn news sources for outing these guys?

http://www.fox4news.com/news/1109965-story

If not, why not? What’s the morally significant difference?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[phiwum]

And I'm discussing that topic. Specifically, I'm addressing the validity of the claims made about CNN and examining the standards being used to judge their actions.

So far, I've determined that CNN gets held to a higher standard of behavior and requires less evidence of wrongdoing than the President of the United States and his role in all of this. I just haven't figured out why yet.

Because we expect CNN to behave like grownups, and we no longer expect presidents to do so. Duh.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[TofuFighter]

....
Right. It's certainly possible that Trump himself browses a subreddit dedicated to him. But in that case it's because it's a subreddit about him and not that Trump browses white supremacist/racists sites. Or he has a close friend on the outside of the beltway who forwards him "interesting" stuff from the subreddit. I think that's more likely but I wouldn't be surprised to learn Trump looks his own self.
....

In light of recent news, that connection could conceivably be DevinM666 (Devin Murphy, legislative aide to) -> Matt Gaetz -> Trump circle or Trump himself.

They're certainly not shy about admitting their source as being r/Donald, describing it as "priding themselves on seeking as much citizen input as possible". Also possibly slightly relevant to the doxxing debate.

 

[Belz...]

Woah! I missed this post on the previous viewing. Silly forum software!

This sort of reasoning is the mirror image of the fallacy that Russell's Teapot was all about.

The theist says, "You cannot refute that God exists, and hence He exists."

Now you're saying, "I cannot prove that God does not exist and you have not refuted it, and so we must conclude He doesn't exist."

No, that's not what I said. I said that negative existential claims cannot be proven, and so we don't bother with them and instead give the burden on the claim that _can_ be proven. Absent said proof, we can safely, but not conclusively, conclude its opposite to be true.

If negative claims deserve the benefit of the doubt, you would be bound to say that we ought to presume, until evidence to the contrary arises, that there is no blarg orbiting Saturn. This sounds like nonsense to me. Blarg might mean "teapot" or "unicorn" or "round triangle", but it also might mean "hydrogen molecule" or "rock" or "bit of matter". Whether the positive or negative claim deserves the benefit of the doubt depends on the meaning of the terms involved and our knowledge of such things, not the logical form of the statement.

No it doesn't. Whether the blarg is something like a unicorn or something like a moon might affect how ridiculous we think the claim is, but it remains unproven until it's demonstrated to be true.

If I've searched long and hard for Bigfoot with no success, then it eventually becomes very improbable he exists.

But you haven't proven that he doesn't.

 

[xjx388]

Do the folks in the anti-doxing crowd condemn news sources for outing these guys?

[qimg]http://static.lakana.com/media.fox4news.com/photo/2015/07/15/28355274_1_28914_ver1.0_640_360.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.fox4news.com/news/1109965-story

If not, why not? What’s the morally significant difference?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The video depicts two kids from the local area who were clearly identifiable as participating in a racist chant. The video itself was nationwide news for obvious reasons. I don't see a parallel here at all.

 

[d4m10n]

The video depicts two kids from the local area who were clearly identifiable as participating in a racist chant. The video itself was nationwide news for obvious reasons. I don't see a parallel here at all.

1) Clearly identifiable if you go to the trouble to do some investigative journalism in order to link those faces with their names. My question is why it was okay to research and publish the names, given your stance on protecting racists from the consequences of their actions.

2) Not terribly obvious to me why it was nationwide news. Sidenote: I'm around half an hour from this campus, it's a local story to me.

3) The parallel is obvious. In both cases the media discovered the identities of people who were openly and performatively racist.

 

[xjx388]

1) Clearly identifiable if you go to the trouble to do some investigative journalism in order to link those faces with their names. My question is why it was okay to research and publish the names, given your stance on protecting racists from the consequences of their actions.

I have never espoused a stance on protecting racists from the consequences of their actions. I have even said CNN should have just published.

In any case, the video depicts actual people (not internet aliases, mind you) openly participating in a racist chant. Anyone who knew him could identify him. He wasn't wearing a mask.

And it wasn't even this news organization who outed them. They didn't do any investigating other than reading other press releases -notably by the campus newspaper OUDaily and then the other by his parent's own press release. The names had been circulating online for awhile before that.

So, that right there should tell us there is no parallel here.

2) Not terribly obvious to me why it was nationwide news. Sidenote: I'm around half an hour from this campus, it's a local story to me.

I think it's obvious why this was nationwide news: A modern-day frat caught on video acting as if they were in the 1950's. It's shocking; even though this probably goes on everyday all over the country, it's rare that you get a video depicting it. The fact that OU then closed the frat house and expelled students because of it, coupled with the legal wrangling afterwards . . . how is this not obviously newsworthy? And in Dallas it's local news too since the kids in the story were the two kids expelled as being the ringleaders.

3) The parallel is obvious. In both cases the media discovered the names of people who were openly and performatively racist.

As I've illustrated, your understanding of who outed who is wrong.

 

[d4m10n]

As I've illustrated, your understanding of who outed who is wrong.

I must admit ignorance as to which news outlet originally linked faces with identities, but whoever did so was in the position of KFILE, having information not generally known on the identities of people who inadvertently went viral in a bad way.

As to your distinction between college kids on a private charter bus and a college professor posting on Reddit, I'm not having it. If anything, the kids were performing their racism on a much, much smaller stage.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[johnny karate]

That's not so unbelievable.

Suppose I have medicine to save one of two persons. Giving the medicine to A is okay, but it would be wrong to tell B that unless he gives me all his wealth, I will give the medicine to A and B will die.

Except that CNN didn’t make an overt threat, if they even made a threat at all.

Some of those who are criticizing CNN are suggesting that they behaved similarly in publicly reserving the right to publish.

I'm not convinced, but I do think that CNN's announcement was poorly worded at best. It does sound a bit threatening, whether they intended it that way or not.

I don’t disagree, but sounding a bit threatening doesn’t mean it’s an actual threat.

 

[xjx388]

I must admit ignorance as to which news outlet originally linked faces with identities, but whoever did so was in the position of KFILE, having information not generally known on the identities of people who inadvertently went viral in a bad way.

They were both identified in social medial posts before any news outlet identified them. For one of the kids, his parents identified him to the wider public by issuing a press release. For the other, the "news outlet" was the OUDaily.

Let's focus on him because that is the one that has the most parallels. OUDaily is the student newspaper at OU. I'm sure you will admit that the identity of the racist frat boy at OU was indeed newsworthy to the students of OU. News organizations should publish newsworthy stories. I have no problem with this.

In CNNs case, the identity of the racist GIF creator was deemed not to be newsworthy. News organizations should not publish un-newsworthy stories.

I think we all agree, that generally speaking, news organizations should also not use the fruits of their investigative labor to threaten people they don't like. Either publish or don't, that should be the end of it.

As to your distinction between college kids on a private charter bus and a college professor posting on Reddit, I'm not having it. If anything, the kids were performing their racism on a much, much smaller stage.

The GIF in question was not anyone "performing their racism." The fact that the creator of the GIF also happens to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on r/The_Donald is interesting but irrelevant to the news story whereas the kids being racist on the bus is the news story.

 

[d4m10n]

The fact that the creator of the GIF also happens to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on r/The_Donald is interesting but irrelevant to the news story whereas the kids being racist on the bus is the news story.

Answering the question of what sort of people create the videos/gifs being shared by the President strikes me as something more than irrelevant, in terms of national newsworthiness.

ETA: Especially considering that resharing from racists has been an ongoing problem.

 

[johnny karate]

In CNNs case, the identity of the racist GIF creator was deemed not to be newsworthy.

No, it wasn't. CNN chose not to publish his identity as a courtesy, not because it wasn't newsworthy. From where the president sources the garbage he tweets is always newsworthy, by virtue of the fact that he's the president.

I think we all agree, that generally speaking, news organizations should also not use the fruits of their investigative labor to threaten people they don't like. Either publish or don't, that should be the end of it.

What we don't agree on is whether or not a threat actually took place. You assumed it, and repeatedly asserted it, but you've yet to establish it.

 

[phiwum]

Except that CNN didn’t make an overt threat, if they even made a threat at all.



I don’t disagree, but sounding a bit threatening doesn’t mean it’s an actual threat.

I'm fairly uncertain about whether the public statement counts as a threat. It seems suggestive at least. I tend to think it is a regrettable statement, sounds too threatening for a news organization, but I can certainly believe that reasonable folk may disagree.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[d4m10n]

I have never espoused a stance on protecting racists from the consequences of their actions. I have even said CNN should have just published.

My sincere apologies for tarring you with such a broad brush; I was most likely thinking of other folks posting in this thread.

 

[phiwum]

Woah! I missed this post on the previous viewing. Silly forum software!



No, that's not what I said. I said that negative existential claims cannot be proven, and so we don't bother with them and instead give the burden on the claim that _can_ be proven. Absent said proof, we can safely, but not conclusively, conclude its opposite to be true.



No it doesn't. Whether the blarg is something like a unicorn or something like a moon might affect how ridiculous we think the claim is, but it remains unproven until it's demonstrated to be true.



But you haven't proven that he doesn't.

Rather than continue this conversation here, where it is off-topic, I've begun a thread in the Religion and Philosophy section.

 

[Noztradamus]

1) Clearly identifiable if you go to the trouble to do some investigative journalism in order to link those faces with their names. My question is why it was okay to research and publish the names, given your stance on protecting racists from the consequences of their actions.

2) Not terribly obvious to me why it was nationwide news. Sidenote: I'm around half an hour from this campus, it's a local story to me.
3) The parallel is obvious. In both cases the media discovered the identities of people who were openly and performatively racist.

Performatively? There's a small different between posting something on reddit and chanting in public. One of public import, the other isn't

 

[d4m10n]

Reddit is publicly viewable worldwide.

A charter bus is a bus.

 

[xjx388]

Reddit is publicly viewable worldwide.

A charter bus is a bus.

And a video shared on the internet is also publicly available as that case clearly illustrated.

 

[xjx388]

My sincere apologies for tarring you with such a broad brush; I was most likely thinking of other folks posting in this thread.

No worries.

 

[Minoosh]

The fact that the creator of the GIF also happens to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on r/The_Donald is interesting but irrelevant to the news story whereas the kids being racist on the bus is the news story.

Methinks the auto-censor function should catch this word you used. Or not typing it in the first place would work too.