Support NeoGAF

[Arkeband]

CNN in 2016:
Trump v. Clinton
(Drum beats, UFC style high-res portraiture, FIGHT NIGHT!!!)

CNN in 2017:
I can't believe this hostile nutjob we made look so fuckin cool is president and also is tweeting violent GIFs of us.

Doxxing private citizens in their days-long quest to keep this at the top of the news cycle is a step too far. We have all the information we need to know just by showing the guy's public internet posts, what the fuck are we supposed to do with his real identity???

 

[kingslunk]

I wonder if the person was underage? 15-16? And the parents were in contact with CNN about an apology etc.

 

[benicillin]

I wonder if the person was underage? 15-16? And the parents were in contact with CNN about an apology etc.

If he was under age revealing his name would have literally never been in the cards.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Doxxing private citizens in their days-long quest to keep this at the top of the news cycle is a step too far.

It would be, but they're not doing that.

 

[Arkeband]

It would be, but they're not doing that.

They clearly threatened to do it.

 

[benicillin]

They clearly threatened to do it.

No, they didn't.

 

[Ascheroth]

They clearly threatened to do it.

No.

 

[BigDes]

When did the meaning of doxxing change from publicly and maliciously revealing someone's name and address to finding out the source of political propaganda and then not revealing who the author was?

 

[Saint Gregory]

I really like how when someone gets caught engaging in shitty, racist behavior eventually the debate shifts to how their rights may have been violated. I call it the Donald Sterling effect.

 

[benicillin]

Remember that time Gawker exposed that creep modding subreddits filled with *legal* photos of underage children and all of Reddit caped for the creep?

He couldn't even sue, and he was HALF as newsworthy as a man involved with the president.

 

[Jebusman]

When did the meaning of doxxing change from publicly and maliciously revealing someone's name and address to finding out the source of political propaganda and then not revealing who the author was?

The moment it was convenient to spin it that way.

 

[caliph95]

Remember that time Gawker exposed that creep modding subreddits filled with *legal* photos of underage children and all of Reddit caped for the creep?

He couldn't even sue, and he was HALF as newsworthy as a man involved with the president.

Didn't that cause reddit to realise (or get off their asses) that CP is illegal and would get them in trouble and purge subreddits

 

[Arkeband]

No, they didn't.

No.

From BBC:

CNN has not revealed the true identity of the user who apologised on Reddit and deleted offensive material including racist posts, but said it "reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change" [sic].

Hmmm!!! HMMMM!!! Why even include that other than as a veiled threat?

Trump has retweeted an insane amount of crazy right wing nutjobs, again, what use do we have as viewers to know that Jimbob Fucknut from Tennessee is the originator of Trump Skullfucking Hillary dot jpeg?

 

[HStallion]

When did the meaning of doxxing change from publicly and maliciously revealing someone's name and address to finding out the source of political propaganda and then not revealing who the author was?

My thoughts exactly. Why is some internet troll so special to get all these protections when no one else does? Its not even like there is some kind of police investigation or criminal case going on where it might need to be hidden or protected. Its a fucking reddit troll.

 

[habithipster]

Meanwhile on Reddit, top comment from top thread about this (by r/television of all):

Fuck you, CNN. I was on your side until this. Actions like this are exactly how you turn a bleeding heart liberal like myself against you. Trump is a monster, and so are you.

Reads almost like propaganda to me. Both sides, right?

 

[evilromero]

They clearly threatened to do it.

Link where they "clearly threatened" to do this?

 

[HStallion]

Meanwhile on Reddit, top comment from top thread about this (by r/television of all):


Reads almost like propaganda to me.

Almost?

 

[benicillin]

From BBC:



Hmmm!!! HMMMM!!! Why even include that other than as a veiled threat?

To make clear that they didn't make any deal with him to withhold his name and it's contingent on the idea that he won't keep making himself a story. If he apologized to CNN but then went and made another meme that THE D retweeted they can say, accurately, that they can publish his name because they never agreed not to.

 

[Ozigizo]

From BBC:



Hmmm!!! HMMMM!!! Why even include that other than as a veiled threat?

You're adding your own narrative at this point.

Good job.

Meanwhile on Reddit, top comment from top thread about this (by r/television of all):


Reads almost like propaganda to me. Both sides, right?

The_d is heavily brigading that topic. They keep bringing up what they're calling the "meme war against CNN"

 

[Arttemis]

All he has to do for me to start thinking his apology was the slightest bit sincere is to out himself. Now that's not me forgiving him, it is however a small step he could make to start changing and a start moving toward forgiveness.

So far his apology has amounted to him blaming the media and then trying to disappear from the internet. This is not the actions of a repentant man. People giving him the benefit of the doubt here are blowing my mind. He has literally done nothing other than write a few hundred words to explain that he was doing it for the lulz

A person who thinks a gun is a n repellent and rejoiced at the news of half a million dead Muslims and you want to give him benefit of the doubt because he wrote a sniveling apology which tried to shift the blame elsewhere. He has done nothing worthy of forgiveness or that would suggest he is acting with any sort of integrity.

Precisely this.

 

[Kinyou]

When you're in a position of power and tag someone for others to see instead of dealing with it privately, you're responsible for your fanbase.

I think that's a tricky question. If CNN had published the name of the redditor and he would have faced harassment, would it have been CNNs fault? Considering that the woman made those tweets publicly he wasn't really under an obligation to keep it private.

 

[bob_arctor]

When did the meaning of doxxing change from publicly and maliciously revealing someone's name and address to finding out the source of political propaganda and then not revealing who the author was?

Since yesterday apparently. Or rather, the meaning hasn't changed at all, it's just that people's capacity to willingly bullshit and feign outrage makes it seem that way.

 

[benicillin]

Meanwhile on Reddit, top comment from top thread about this (by r/television of all):


Reads almost like propaganda to me. Both sides, right?

It's horrifying actually. I was looking over that thread last night and it's chilling seeing astroturfing in effect.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

They clearly threatened to do it.

Let's say for the sake of argument you're right even though you're not.

All the guy has to do is not post racist shit, not advocate for genocide, and not fantasize about killing journalists. That's like the most avoidable blackmail ever.

 

[Aurongel]

Meanwhile on Reddit, top comment from top thread about this (by r/television of all):


Reads almost like propaganda to me. Both sides, right?

If something this benign is all it takes to flip someone's entire political philosophy then they must not have a strong grasp on their own personal politics to begin with.

Or what's more likely is that they were never liberal and are lying about it to strengthen their argument.

 

[habithipster]

Almost?

Sorry, corrected.

 

[dynamitejim]

Remember that time Gawker exposed that creep modding subreddits filled with *legal* photos of underage children and all of Reddit caped for the creep?

He couldn't even sue, and he was HALF as newsworthy as a man involved with the president.

A news org revealed a politician as being behind theredpill subreddit as well. They're news organizations, they report on things that happen and the people responsible.

Calling this shit doxxing is just more propaganda from the right to discredit the media for revealing what deplorable pieces of shit they are.

 

[habithipster]

It's horrifying actually. I was looking over that thread last night and it's chilling seeing astroturfing in effect.

It is maddening. Also, the most upvoted reply:

They can't lose a viewer they never had but I'm probably going to stop downvoting people who constantly call them fake news I guess.

 

[hodgy100]

reddit is seriously a dangerous tool that can be used to manipulate peoples opinions.

easy signup where the most upvoted thigns get the most visibility.

scary

 

[GrapeApes]

Again, this is who people are defending

From BBC

Hmmm!!! HMMMM!!! Why even include that other than as a veiled threat?

Because the story can change. If someone else reports his information and the story becomes bigger (let's say Trump comments on it). Do you think CNN should not report it because of some promise they made to HanAssholeSolo?

 

[King Tubby]

If something this benign is all it takes to flip someone's entire political philosophy then they must not have a strong grasp on their own personal politics to begin with.

Or what's more likely is that they were never liberal and are lying about it to strengthen their argument.

That person didn't say anything about flipping their political philosophy, just turning against CNN. Since when is CNN some exemplar of journalistic integrity? I've never really enjoyed them outside of a few personalities.

 

[BigDes]

Oh that's just edgy shitposting!

I believe that is the out we give to people who are openly racist on message boards these days.

It's isn't vlle, fascist bile, it's just edginess!

 

[Saint Gregory]

If something this benign is all it takes to flip someone's entire political philosophy then they must not have a strong grasp on their own personal politics to begin with.

Or what's more likely is that they were never liberal and are lying about it to strengthen their argument.

And we saw tactics like that play out all through the campaign.

"Well I was a life-long liberal but after that deplorables comment* I'm voting Trump!"

*insert emails where necessary

 

[BronsonLee]

Reddit is for flops anyways, it needs to go the way of Digg/Fark/whatever the hell came before them

 

[hodgy100]

I hope people dont think i'm defending the guy :/

 

[BigDes]

And we saw tactics like that play out all through the campaign.

"Well I was a life-long liberal but after that deplorables comment* I'm voting Trump!"

*insert emails where necessary

Hell its a tactic we still see on this very board

Just go into any gaming side thread about the FEMALES

I consider myself a liberal but this willful misconstruing of what Anita Sarkesian said means I hate women now!

 

[Aurongel]

When an anonymous person online releases private information, it's done so maliciously and anonymously which means that they have zero accountability for their actions. CNN is a news organization and are putting their credibility on the line every time they disclose information like that.

The distinctions between the two cannot be more clear. If this is what qualifies as "doxxing" then the team who broke the Boston clergy pedophilia scandal in the early 2000s must be master trolls.

Except they're not, they're respected journalists. Besides, what's happening here isn't some random act by a private citizen. It's a history of very extreme, very real threats against people who have no choice but to take that shit seriously when they don't have a face to match it to.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Yeah, journalists identifying an internet tough guy who says he wants to murder all the blacks and Muslims is exactly the same thing as directly promoting the harassment of people because they liked the Ghostbusters reboot.

Come the fuck on.

 

[BronsonLee]

Yeah, journalists identifying an internet tough guy who says he wants to murder all the blacks and Muslims is exactly the same thing as directly promoting the harassment of people because they liked the Ghostbusters reboot.

Come the fuck on.

I ain't afraid of no (RACIAL EPITHET)

*identity gets revealed*

...I am afraid, actually

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Yeah, journalists identifying an internet tough guy who says he wants to murder all the blacks and Muslims is exactly the same thing as directly promoting the harassment of people because they liked the Ghostbusters reboot.

Come the fuck on.

Not to mention that whole "Jews who work at CNN" collage might've been the bigger motivation to track this guy.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Yeah, journalists identifying an internet tough guy who says he wants to murder all the blacks and Muslims is exactly the same thing as directly promoting the harassment of people because they liked the Ghostbusters reboot.

Come the fuck on.

Doesn't get more succinct than this lol

 

[Kinyou]

Because the story can change. If someone else reports his information and the story becomes bigger (let's say Trump comments on it). Do you think CNN should not report it because of some promise they made to HanAssholeSolo?

They're not saying that though. They're specifically referencing his apology, saying that if any of that changes they're reserving the right to publish the name.

What I find weird about that statement is that they don't have to announce it so directly. If anything changes they can give their reason for revealing his name in the updated story. It's already implied that they might publish his name if it's an insincere apology, considering that it's their specific reason for not publishing his name.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Welp, Trump's son got hold of it now. Only a matter of time before Trump starts latching on to it.

Pathetic!

Donald Trump Jr.‏Verified account
@DonaldJTrumpJr

Donald Trump Jr. Retweeted Nick Short ����
So I guess they weren't effective threatening the admin so they go after & bully a 15 y/o? Seems in line w their "standards" #CNNBlackmail

 

[Fuchsdh]

When an anonymous person online releases private information, it's done so maliciously and anonymously which means that they have zero accountability for their actions. CNN is a news organization and are putting their credibility on the line every time they disclose information like that.

The distinctions between the two cannot be more clear. If this is what qualifies as "doxxing" then the team who broke the Boston clergy pedophilia scandal in the early 2000s must be master trolls.

Except they're not, they're respected journalists. Besides, what's happening here isn't some random act by a private citizen. It's a history of very extreme, very real threats against people who have no choice but to take that shit seriously when they don't have a face to match it to.

Except online posts that only violate social norms, not laws, are not comparable to priests committing actual crimes and abusing minors. (Nothing I've seen posted in this thread rises to a specific threat against a person that would be criminal under at least federal law.)

Posting his name would have been a tabloid journalism-level maneuver with the goal, like most doxxing, of fucking over his life, not for any journalistic reason. Whether he deserves that or not is irrelevant insofar as the news org should be concerned.

 

[Psychoward]

Welp, Trump's son got hold of it now. Only a matter of time before Trump starts latching on to it.

Pathetic!

remember when trump said those black minors should be killed

fun times

 

[AlimNassor]

Except CNN felt the need to track this guy down because, he made a stupid .gif. At what point do we draw the line? Seems like people cry for privacy but, the second someone goes against the quo they get outted. I don't have sympathy for the racist troll but, it's still the principle of the matter. Why go through the effort of tracking him down just to expose him?

 

[Kinyou]

Welp, Trump's son got hold of it now. Only a matter of time before Trump starts latching on to it.

Pathetic!

No suprise that he instantly buys into it being a 15 year old.

 

[benicillin]

They're not saying that though. They're specifically referencing his apology, saying that if any of that changes they're witholding the right to publish the name.

What I find weird about that statement is thag they don't have to announce it so directly. If anything changes they can give their reason for revealing his name in the updated story. It's already implied that they might publish his name if it's an insincere apology.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The apology is presented synonymous with him stopping hate posting. If he doesn't do it anymore the story is over. If he continues to post stuff the story continues and they can't guarantee they won't release his name.

 

[Darryl M R]

I hope the accusation that CNN is bullying a 15 y/o forces CNN to reveal that the guy is actually a 26 y/o English teacher in Chicago.

 

[Jintor]

Hmmm!!! HMMMM!!! Why even include that other than as a veiled threat?

ppl reserve their rights all the time. i read like 20 documents today where the judge reserved their rights in respect of costs, or one part reserved their rights in respect of x that wasn't revealed ahead of time, blah. it's not exactly code.