Reddit?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reddit troll apologizes for trump CNN gif/all those racist remarks
- Thread starter Crossing Eden
- Start date
Reddit?
Imp the Dimp
Member
Thankfully this made the front page of Reddit, and has quelled the CNN story considerably.
Got a link to the reddit thread?
shawnbuddy
Member
For those confused about what blackmail is, this is blackmail. Trump is threatening to block a Time Warner merger if he doesn't get better coverage on CNN.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html
BrutishMrFish
Member
Some reporting on the KFILE article, including specific background on the "we reserve the right" line here: http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983
benicillin
Banned
Some reporting on the KFILE article, including specific background on the "we reserve the right" line here: http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983
Everyone who accused CNN of blackmail should have this article printed out and stapled to their forehead.
Everyone who accused CNN of blackmail should have this article printed out and stapled to their forehead.
What makes you think they'll understand it any better, if they were even sincerely misunderstanding it in the first place?
Those people already dropped their transparent ass driveby posts itt on their way back to handwringing about the media and freeze peach on Reddit.Everyone who accused CNN of blackmail should have this article printed out and stapled to their forehead.
excelsiorlef
Member
Some reporting on the KFILE article, including specific background on the "we reserve the right" line here: http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, in his version of the indictment, argued that ”one of the nation's most powerful media corporations is explicitly threatening a critic with exposure" and that CNN had chosen to ”threaten and punish a random, obscure citizen." Right-wing Twitter accounts published the address and other personal information of Kaczynski and his family as an act of retaliation.
Oh look another one for the Greenwald ain't shit pile...
CNN is threatening a critic.... a fucking critic that's how Greenwald decides to portray a racist fuck
Also lol the comment section of the Intercept piece wouldn't be out of place at r/T_D.
Way to attract such a great audience Greenwald
Oh look another one for the Greenwald ain't shit pile...
CNN is threatening a critic.... a fucking critic that's how Greenwald decides to portray a racist fuck
Also lol the comment section of the Intercept piece wouldn't be out of place at r/T_D.
Way to attract such a great audience Greenwald
People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.
People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.
What size media company is allowed to hold people accountable for their actions?
When does a news company become too big to report on news stories?
What size media company is allowed to hold people accountable for their actions?
When does a news company become too big to report on news stories?
Who are the people and what public good does it serve to out them?
googleplex
Member
People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.
The advocating of violence and murder of people of color and jews....are just "Crappy things"
Sho_Nuff82
Member
People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life.
Only that's not what happened, and addressing that strawman doesn't make for a coherent argument.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The advocating of violence and murder of people of color and jews....are just "Crappy things"
Some people's minds stop at "racism isn't illegal so it doesn't count."
Some people's minds stop at "racism isn't illegal so it doesn't count."
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
It was informative to know that he was posting images created by neo-nazis during the campaign.
It's informative to know that he is posting images created by racists calling for ethnic violence today.
http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983
It's informative to know that he is posting images created by racists calling for ethnic violence today.
True. CNN never threatened the racist:Only that's not what happened, and addressing that strawman doesn't make for a coherent argument.
http://gizmodo.com/how-cnn-made-its-own-reporting-sound-like-blackmail-1796656983
Psychoward
Banned
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
some people realize the justice system is flawed and behind the times when it comes to online cases
some people realize a media corporation reports on things to help keep the law in check
and still, some people realize there's no mob justice here
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
What happens if the law is constructed in a way that enables persecution against vulnerable groups? Is the media not allowed to highlight areas that the justice system fails to capture, or is it supposed to remain silent?
some people realize the justice system is flawed and behind the times when it comes to online cases
Would this be persecuted if it wasn't online?
It's informative to know who the president of the united states of america is promoting.
It was informative to know that he was posting images created by neo-nazis during the campaign.
It's informative to know that he is posting images created by racists calling for ethnic violence today.
Its informative to know this about the president, yes. And what public good does putting the racist dude's name out there do?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
Lol
you haven't even read part of the thread, have you.
Almost feel sorry for you
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
Surely this is directed towards the mob of 4channers/Redditers currently and actually doxxing the journalist, his family, and colleagues.
Surely.
Its informative to know this about the president, yes. And what public good does putting the racist dude's name out there do?
But it would be completely legal if they chose to do so. End of story.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
You should probably read the gizmodo article.
Or someone should just paste it into the OP.
CNN did not threaten him.
Its informative to know this about the president, yes. And what public good does putting the racist dude's name out there do?
CNN said there was nothing to be gained to the public good by doing so, as the man had stepped away from his pedestal and wanted to move on with his life.
In an alternate timeline where he becomes the most famous shitposter of all time and gets regularly retweeted by right wing blogs, news, hate groups, and the president, his identity is then of public interest.
Like this guy:
http://www.snopes.com/2017/04/25/legislator-reddit-redpill-forum/
What happens if the law is constructed in a way that enables persecution against vulnerable groups? Is the media not allowed to highlight areas that the justice system fails to capture, or is it supposed to remain silent?
Would this be persecuted if it wasn't online?
By all means highlight it. CNN has highlighted it without needing to publish the guy's name. They also didn't need to threaten to publish his name.
This desire for mob justice against the dude is gross.
By all means highlight it. CNN has highlighted it without needing to publish the guy's name. They also didn't need to threaten to publish his name.
This desire for mob justice against the dude is gross.
They could have published the name anyway. They purposely withheld publishing the name because of his apology (which was likely insincere but ah well).
By all means highlight it. CNN has highlighted it without needing to publish the guy's name. They also didn't need to threaten to publish his name.
This desire for mob justice against the dude is gross.
It is within journalistic norms to source things that a president signal boosts, and entirely within the public interest for these things to be known, lest you end up with a secretive propaganda ministry. CNN was entirely within their right to publish his name, but they took pity because the dude became a bitchbaby at the first sign that the things he said online might affect his real life.
Surely this is directed towards the mob of 4channers/Redditers currently and actually doxxing the journalist, his family, and colleagues.
Surely.
What? I'm not on a team here and I have the mental capacity to think multiple things are bad. Doxxing and mob justice are awful no matter who is doing it.
Some people think that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not a media corporation and internet mob justice.
If he broke the law he should be prosecuted under the law.
End of story.
I recommend reading up on the Panama Papers: https://panamapapers.icij.org
It's a huge story that has had a gigantic effect on dozens and dozens of nations including leading to the resignation or removal of several world leaders. It's the result of a collaborated effort by over 100 different media companies.
If we waited for the justice system to get to this NONE of this information would have ever been known.
It is within journalistic norms to source things that a president signal boosts, and entirely within the public interest for these things to be known, lest you end up with a secretive propaganda ministry. CNN was entirely within their right to publish his name, but they took pity because the dude became a bitchbaby at the first sign that the things he said online might affect his real life.
You can tell the entire story and signal boost how shitty the president is without the internet mob justice calling for the racist asshole's life... and in fact in the end that's what CNN did.
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
What? I'm not on a team here and I have the mental capacity to think multiple things are bad. Doxxing and mob justice are awful no matter who is doing it.
Yet you're wasting bits on the internet arguing against a hypothetical injustice when the actual injustice you're claiming to be against is currently happening to the people you're attempting to admonish.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
By all means highlight it. CNN has highlighted it without needing to publish the guy's name. They also didn't need to threaten to publish his name.
This desire for mob justice against the dude is gross.
They didn't.
They stated, in legalese, that they didn't have a legal obligation to withhold his name, but they were doing it anyway.
What? I'm not on a team here and I have the mental capacity to think multiple things are bad. Doxxing and mob justice are awful no matter who is doing it.
Reporting is not doxxing, and the mob justice he would have faced if his name had been published would have been his family, friends, and coworkers knowing what a sack of shit he is and reasonably distancing themselves from him if they felt like they should. Boo hoo. Dude got lucky.
I recommend reading up on the Panama Papers: https://panamapapers.icij.org
It's a huge story that has had a gigantic effect on dozens and dozens of nations including leading to the resignation or removal of several world leaders. It's the result of a collaborated effort by over 100 different media companies.
If we waited for the justice system to get to this NONE of this information would have ever been known.
You're comparing he investigative journalism via leaked documents of the panama papers to outting the name of one racist redditor?
Its informative to know this about the president, yes. And what public good does putting the racist dude's name out there do?
CNN decided that there wasn't a need to put the dude's name out there, so they didn't put his name out there.
If, in the future, there is a need to put his name out there, such as continuing to threaten people or working for the president, they're reserving the right to put his name out there then.
What exactly is the problem that you have with CNN's decision?
Yet you're wasting bits on the internet arguing against a hypothetical injustice when the actual injustice you're claiming to be against is currently happening to the people you're attempting to admonish.
I'd like to see no one call for mob justice. I don't think speaking out against it in all it's forms is a waste of time.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
It's easy to have an argument when you ignore all of the posts pointing out where you went wrong.
I'm personally never satisfied when someone apologizes for anything publically. They're not sorry they did it, they're sorry they got caught. They would have continued (and could still do so) doing what they did if nothing had happened, not like they suddenly had a change of heart. Apologies only mean something if it triggers an actual change in behavior.
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
I'd like to see no one call for mob justice. I don't think speaking out against it in all it's forms is a waste of time.
Oh, if I sidetracked you right as you were about to lay into reddit and 4chan, by all means go ahead.
CNN decided that there wasn't a need to put the dude's name out there, so they didn't put his name out there.
If, in the future, there is a need to put his name out there, such as continuing to threaten people or working for the president, they're reserving the right to put his name out there then.
What exactly is the problem that you have with CNN's decision?
I'm glad they made the final decision that they did. The problem I have with how they got there was stated in my first post in this thread:
"People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life."
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
maybe not posting racist shit is an easier way to make sure your life isn't ruined................................................................................................................nah.
You're comparing he investigative journalism via leaked documents of the panama papers to outting the name of one racist redditor?
No. I'm responding to a post saying that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not media companies'. I responded with a major news story of media companies exposing legal and ethical breaches in a long reaching system that the justice system ignored.
maybe not posting racist shit is an easier way to make sure your life isn't ruined................................................................................................................nah.
People not posting racist shit is the first sign of a police state. Posting racist shit is the first and greatest of all fundamental freedoms.
Oh, if I sidetracked you right as you were about to lay into reddit and 4chan, by all means go ahead.
If you think I'm some throw away account or shit poster or "both sides" asshole please feel free to consult my post history.
Fuck Reddit and super fuck 4chan. In most cases they're the originators of gross mob justice. I don't like it when they do it and I still don't like it when some people on GAF do it.
I'm glad they made the final decision that they did. The problem I have with how they got there was stated in my first post in this thread:
"People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life."
No one threatened to expose him.
CNN called him up for a comment. A perfectly normal thing to do for a news organization. The man took credit for creating a GIF that was tweeted out by the president. It was a newsworthy thing to look into.
No. I'm responding to a post saying that it's the justice system's job to enforce the law, not media companies'. I responded with a major news story of media companies exposing legal and ethical breaches in a long reaching system that the justice system ignored.
My point was that he doesn't seem to have broken the law by making a wrestling gif. Sorry if you missed that.
I definitely value investigative journalism and the ways it has contributed to aiding law enforcement at important times in history. What I disagree with is the notion that some people want this one racist asshole to be outed by a media corporation as a sort of preventative measure against other people doing it in the future.
I don't think that sort of public shaming should be the media's place.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
I'd like to see no one call for mob justice. I don't think speaking out against it in all it's forms is a waste of time.
Doing shitty things on the internet does not give you a right to anonymity. People reported on for doing shitty things is not unlawful and is likely a public good if it encourages others to avoid said behavior. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequence. It's possible to report terrible behavior in an unbiased way that is in no way a call to arms. If someone attacks this terrible person, it's on the stupid person who decided to take matters into their own hands and will likely be punished.
I too am getting so sick and tired of multimedia conglomerate CNN constantly making huge investigative news stories(more like witch hunts) about anonymous internet people on social media whose "opinions" disparage them or offend them and revealing their information in attempts to have them publicly shamed. Enough is enough."People should be allowed to anonymously post (even crappy) things on the internet without giant media corporations threatening to expose them in a way that would ruin their life."
No one threatened to expose him.
CNN called him up for a comment. A perfectly normal thing to do for a news organization. The man took credit for creating a GIF that was tweeted out by the president. It was a newsworthy thing to look into.
Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
Sure and Trump wasn't telling Comey he had to drop the investigation, just saying that he hoped to see him let it go. A perfectly normal thing for someone to say when they hope the best for a friend. Not a threat at all.
This is such a dumb false equivalency, I'm speechless.