Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 14:12:32 GMT -5
Yes, he knew CNN was on to him. BUT HE HAD NOT SPOKEN TO THEM AT THE TIME HE DELETED THE POSTS AND APOLOGIZED HENCE, THEY HAD NOT THREATENED HIM. HENCE, HE DID NOT DELETE THE POSTS BECAUSE OF THEIR ALLEGED "THREAT."
I put that in caps because I think you're the one misreading me. He likely DID delete the posts aand apologize at least in part because he was afraid of exposure. But he did NOT delete the posts and apologize because of their "threats".
Unless, of course, you can show that CNN sent an upfront email saying "delete your posts or we'll expose you." I really doubt it -- I have seen no one claim that is the case. I think it much more likely they asked him for comments, and that freaked him out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 14:36:08 GMT -5
By the way, had I been CNN's lawyer, based on the facts I know, I likely would have advised them to report the troll's name. But I think what they are "guilty" of is not blackmail or anything close to it, but of being too nice.
I am not going to blame them for doing a bit of investigative journalism to see if the gif came from an interesting place.
I am not going to fault them for believing it's newsworthy that it came from an extreme alt-right community on the internet, and a poster who was notorious for posting truly hateful slurs, some advocating violence. (I find it newsworthy -- so do many. Hence, it is.)
I am not going to fault them for reaching out for comments to the author of the gif.
I am not going to fault them for reserving the right to reveal his real name if he continued, because, as noted above, the ugliness of some of those posts could indicate the guy is a potential danger. If so, and CNN said nothing as he continued to say Muslims deserved death, etc., They might have some liability, or at least look bad, if this guy shot up a mosque next week, and they'd just clammed up, knowing the existence and author of the posts.
They made a decision that his voluntary retraction, deletion and apology was sincere and he was therefore not a danger. And therefore, they left his name out of it. They left themselves room to speak up if it turned out the guy demonstrated he was not sincere by continuing to spew the hate stuff.
I will not fault them for reserving that right.
But they might have been too nice in trusting his apology and keeping his name confidential. I don't quite fault them for that, either, and certainly don't think it "blackmail,"" but I likely would have advised them to not be merciful.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 14:57:58 GMT -5
Yes, he knew CNN was on to him. BUT HE HAD NOT SPOKEN TO THEM AT THE TIME HE DELETED THE POSTS AND APOLOGIZED HENCE, THEY HAD NOT THREATENED HIM. HENCE, HE DID NOT DELETE THE POSTS BECAUSE OF THEIR ALLEGED "THREAT." I put that in caps because I think you're the one misreading me. He likely DID delete the posts aand apologize at least in part because he was afraid of exposure. But he did NOT delete the posts and apologize because of their "threats". Unless, of course, you can show that CNN sent an upfront email saying "delete your posts or we'll expose you." I really doubt it -- I have seen no one claim that is the case. I think it much more likely they asked him for comments, and that freaked him out. You just said this: I can't see how you could possibly draw such a conclusion, unless you were assuming that the apology and deletion were actions taken with no knowledge that CNN had already identified him. It doesn't make any sense, otherwise. And now--again--you are allowing that he was afraid, that he was freaked out, because he was going to be exposed. What started this angle of discussion was me saying that the guy saying that CNN did not threaten him was predictable, because he was afraid. Nighttimer said we din't know if he was afraid and you agreed with him. So...clarify it for me, please. Are you saying it makes more sense to assume that his apology was totally heartfelt than to suppose it was a reaction predicated on the fear of being exposed? Are you saying that his subsequent agreement with a CNN reporter--who called the troll after the CNN story was up--that he was not being threatened by CNN can't be chalked up to that same fear (even though we only have the CNN reporter's word on this)? I think that if this whole situation didn't involve Trump, most everyone would see things through an Occam's Razor perspective: Troll gets identified by a major news org. In fear of public exposure, troll hastily deletes all of his heinous posts and offers a quick apology for his actions. News org runs story saying "we accept your apology, but do it again and we'll expose you." Troll, still in fear of exposure, does whatever he has to in order to stay on good side of news org. Again, I don't really think this qualifies as blackmail. But at the same time, CNN isn't a law enforcement agency. The threat remains clear: do something we don't like and we'll reveal your identity. And again, this is all a consequence of a gif that was--imo--completely harmless and hardly worth the consternation it has apparently caused at CNN.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2017 14:58:14 GMT -5
My problem with CNN in this regard is that there was a threat to expose him publicly if he made a gif again regarding them. It had nothing to do with their defense of Islam, women, Jews, the Pope, covfefe or my left toe. So today it was a guy who posted repulsive things. What about tomorrow if someone else does a gif they don't like. We all know when you're outed on the internet, you become a target. Sometimes of death threats. Death threats? Two words: PROVE IT. Or it didn't happen. Oh, and BTW, didn't CNN go through all of this to see if the idiot was connected with Trump? Once they found that he wasn't, why not just drop it. They should have bigger issues to handle over there. I've already explained why, but once more into the breach. When Trump retweeted HanAssholeSolo's CNN-bashing gif, there is your connection with Trump. Trump forged the link, not the other way around. That's why CNN didn't "just drop it." Because it's N-E-W-S. And I have another explanation, actually. 3) He was having stupid anonymous obnoxious "fun" stirring people up, and when confronted with it, he realized how harmful and awful it was, and was genuinely sorry. It could be any one of those things, but nighttimer is correct: we don't know. We do have his apology, however, which supports theory 3). 1) We don't know lots of things, but that's not stopping people from offering opinions. For instance, we don't know that the gif is intended to induce people to beat up reporters, yet people have no problem making the assumption that such is the case (with no evidence, of course). 2) Your explanation is not much different than my second one, because both allow that he had an epiphany of sorts and decided to change his ways (reverse them, really) merely because CNN figured out who he was. If that's the case, then why doesn't he man up and publicly identify himself, do you think? 3) His apology supports all three theories, actually. It's not inconsistent with any of them, at all. I think you and nighttimer are eschewing common sense here. Why? Because I don't agree? Common sense isn't common, but even if it were, disagreeing with you wouldn't mean I was eschewing it. You say people have no problem making the assumption HanAssholeSolo's gif retweeted by Trump is a call to beat up reporters. There's a lot of that going around. You're people too, and you have no problem assuming HanAssholeSolo's apology is sincere and joining with Vince in nail-chewing worry that the poor slob is quivering in his booties afraid the next knock at the door won't be the pizza deliveryman but an angry pro-CNN snowflake bringing a lead salad. Your theories are just that. Theories. But the compassion for a shitposting troll is very humane. I don't buy any of this. Not for a second, but as long as you do and it makes you feel like you've figured it out, I'm okay with all of it. If CNN had just gone ahead and reported his identity, they'd have every right. Frankly, I wish they had. I'd have more respect for them, had that been the case. For all those who say CNN should have posted the real name of Mr. Shitposter Troll, there's a certain code of ethics that while purely voluntary, many serious journalists take seriously. I posted this elsewhere, but you guys just made it relevant here too. Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.I know this will clear up nothing for some and very little for others, but if it's good enough for the Society of Professional Journalists, it's good enough for any journalism professional at CNN.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 15:03:30 GMT -5
I don't buy any of this. Not for a second, but as long as you do and it makes you feel like you've figured it out, I'm okay with all of it. None of it? So when CNN says he was nervous and afraid, they were wrong? Do you think CNN was lying or that the guy was lying to them, in this regard?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 7, 2017 15:40:32 GMT -5
You say people have no problem making the assumption HanAssholeSolo's gif retweeted by Trump is a call to beat up reporters. There's a lot of that going around. You're people too, and you have no problem assuming HanAssholeSolo's apology is sincere and joining with Vince in nail-chewing worry that the poor slob is quivering in his booties afraid the next knock at the door won't be the pizza deliveryman but an angry pro-CNN snowflake bringing a lead salad. Your theories are just that. Theories. But the compassion for a shitposting troll is very humane. FYI, on the part in bold, you're mistaken. I don't think his apology is sincere at all. Though it seems like there's a line being drawn here with me on one side and you and Cass on the other, I don't think that's really the case at all. Because I think both you and I see this guy as--using your words--a "shitposting troll." So I think his apology is all about trying to avoid the consequences of his racist postings, nothing more. In contrast, Cass seems to think that it's reasonable to believe he realized that he was behaving badly and that his apology was sincere. Am I right, in this regard?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 7, 2017 15:46:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 16:07:55 GMT -5
I've said what I'm saying and just can't imagine what else I could say -- at this point I'm just repeating myself. I stand by all of it, and I hereby double down and return to poetry.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 7, 2017 20:10:58 GMT -5
The bolded, and especially that last line, are ridiculous, imo. "Only speak as approved by CNN or suffer for it"? Come on. Way too much drama in that statement. He said reprehensible things. CNN was under no obligation to protect his precious identity for it in the first place, and the article states plainly that they could have published his name, no foul. They chose not to. They also chose to publicly state their choice not to. And not necessarily in the best way possible, I can agree with that as a criticism, but it's minor. Maybe they were trying to get some "points," somehow, by stating it the way they did. But the facts remain the facts. Asshole had no right to anonymity. None. They granted it in spite of that. If you take all of the examples of NOT blackmail that Cass posted upthread, add that she mentioned to interested parties that she'd given the perp a pass, for now, why does that suddenly make Cass a bad person? I think it's overly kind, quite frankly. When you say (or do) really shitty things, and people let you off the hook for public humiliation, while also stating that it's not a free pass for future transgressions, suddenly you're Evil McEvil flexing your powerful muscles on the poor, weak assholes of the world? SMDH.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 7, 2017 20:44:39 GMT -5
The bolded, and especially that last line, are ridiculous, imo. "Only speak as approved by CNN or suffer for it"? Come on. Way too much drama in that statement. He said reprehensible things. CNN was under no obligation to protect his precious identity for it in the first place, and the article states plainly that they could have published his name, no foul. They chose not to. They also chose to publicly state their choice not to. And not necessarily in the best way possible, I can agree with that as a criticism, but it's minor. Maybe they were trying to get some "points," somehow, by stating it the way they did. But the facts remain the facts. Asshole had no right to anonymity. None. They granted it in spite of that. If you take all of the examples of NOT blackmail that Cass posted upthread, add that she mentioned to interested parties that she'd given the perp a pass, for now, why does that suddenly make Cass a bad person? I think it's overly kind, quite frankly. When you say (or do) really shitty things, and people let you off the hook for public humiliation, while also stating that it's not a free pass for future transgressions, suddenly you're Evil McEvil flexing your powerful muscles on the poor, weak assholes of the world? SMDH. If they'd originally released his name without all the posturing and veiled threat, then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Like the author in the Vox piece I quoted and linked to earlier said, they should've stopped at "We chose not to reveal the person's name because he is a private citizen." If they weren't planning on releasing his name, that's all they should've said. They took it too far with the veiled threat, and it turns out it wasn't even the journalist who wrote that; it was added later by an editor. I have no sympathy for trolls, especially those who post hideous things like this troll did. My issue isn't this asshole's feelings or his concerns that people would find out he posted horrible, disgusting shit on the internet. I think the internet might be a better place if there were no anonymity, so that people who post horrible shit would have to own it. On the other hand, there are also wacko vigilantes out there who have no problem harassing and threatening innocent people for pretty much anything. So, I'm not sure if the internet would be better place if there were no anonymity. Seems like shitty people will find a way to make it suck no matter what. My issue is, and has been from the start, the worrying precedent this might set. A major media organization tracked down a private citizen who made a meme that was insulting to them, gathered his personal identifying info, and then publicly stated in an article that they might release that info if he dared return to his life of internet trolling at some point in the future. That is a very bad thing for a major news outlet to do, threaten to do, or imply that they might do. I don't get how people don't get that. Again, I don't care about the troll's feelings. People who post the kinds of awful things like he did are miserable pieces of shit, imo. But, what if Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars decided to start tracking down anonymous creators of anti-Trump memes and threatening to publish their names because they found a bunch of internet posts the people had made that they found offensive/insulting/bigoted? I doubt many people on the left would be okay with that and, were that to happen, I kind of doubt that people here who don't seem to think it's a big deal would still feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 7, 2017 21:08:38 GMT -5
My issue is, and has been from the start, the worrying precedent this might set. A major media organization tracked down a private citizen who made a meme that was insulting to them, gathered his personal identifying info, and then publicly stated in an article that they might release that info if he dared return to his life of internet trolling at some point in the future. That is a very bad thing for a major news outlet to do, threaten to do, or imply that they might do. I don't get how people don't get that. As I understand it, the reason they tracked him down was because Trump retweeted his gif. What if they'd found nothing other than that "hilarious," harmless gif? NOTHING. Nothing would have happened. But voila, investigative reporting found that the same guy who thought it was hilarious to make a gif of Trump smacking down CNN also happened to be a bigoted, racist, disgusting person in general. (Wonders never cease.) To quote nighttimer: THAT'S NEWS. Wrongo. I would totally still feel that way. People who post anti-Trump memes are also not entitled to anonymity. People who don't want others to know the vile, disgusting things they really feel should not post those things on the internet. There is no such thing as anonymity. Case in point, people who praised Griffin's pic of Trump's severed head should not be "protected" either. ETA: here's a idea: If you wouldn't say it in public (or, to your mother), don't say it on the internet. Save it for private conversations with friends you trust not to "out" you for being an asshole. The internet is NOT private. SMDH.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 7, 2017 21:32:38 GMT -5
As I understand it, the reason they tracked him down was because Trump retweeted his gif. What if they'd found nothing other than that "hilarious," harmless gif? NOTHING. Nothing would have happened. But voila, investigative reporting found that the same guy who thought it was hilarious to make a gif of Trump smacking down CNN also happened to be a bigoted, racist, disgusting person in general. (Wonders never cease.) To quote nighttimer: THAT'S NEWS. No, that's not news and the fact that CNN thought it was is illustrative of their poor judgment and stupidity. Going to an internet board called, "I'm Going to Hell for This" which states in its description that the entire point of the board is for people to post the most vile things they can think of, and then being surprised that people on that board dedicated to posting awful things are posting awful things is about as stupid as going to a board called "Fuji Apples are Delicious!" with a description that says "post about how much you love fujis!" and being shocked that there are people there posting about how much they love Fuji apples. What IS news, or at least what should've been the main story, is the fact that either Trump or someone on his staff who sent him that meme is visiting a trash site of vile racist, bigoted shit and then sharing memes from it. The story should've always been about Trump and whether or not he is visiting these types of sites, not about a single dumb internet troll. I feel you're still missing the larger point. If a far-left person anonymously posted that she thought Trump was a garbage person (she'll get no argument from me) and shared a satirical meme about Breitbart that really wasn't all that bad, but Breitbart decided to be the snowflakes they often are and hunt this person down and do what CNN did, I would be bothered by that. And, if the meme the person shared was not bad, but Breitbart was making a big deal of it, and we all know that internet trolls are going to mercilessly harass the person and probably send death threats, then I would hope you would be against that. Because of really poor wording added by an editor that came off to many people on the left and the right as a veiled threat, there are other vicious trolls now threatening and harrasing CNN journalists and their families and there are dozens of new anti-CNN memes spreading on the internet. They should've just let it go and focused on more important issues, like why Trump was apparently visiting hateful Reddit forums in the first place. There are likely millions of internet trolls out there. Swatting down one unimportant, anonymous troll was a dumb and pointless exercise in whack-a-mole, imo, and backfired on them. Now, instead of the story being about Trump, the story is now about CNN and this internet troll. Instead of ignoring the troll and focusing on Trump, they Streisand Effect'd the entire thing and made it a much larger story than it deserved to be and harmed their reputation (for the third or fourth time in a week) even more. The point - and it's really disconcerting that I have to keep emphasizing this - is that major media groups shouldn't be doing stuff like that. The Trump troll posted racist, shitbag things. But so what? The story should've been about Trump. What if the next person didn't post things that any reasonable person would regard as being bad like that? What if they were just criticizing Breitbart as is their right? Would you still think it's okay for Breitbart to go after them and implicitly threaten them like that? If so, then I just really don't know what to tell you or Cass, other than I think that's a head-scratchingly callous attitude to take.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 7, 2017 22:06:59 GMT -5
What am I supposed to prove about the death threats? I didn't say they happened here, I said that when you get outed on the internet for something like this, it can result in death threats.
Hell, isn't CNN receiving death threats over this?
People are idiots. News at 11.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 7, 2017 22:10:05 GMT -5
As I understand it, the reason they tracked him down was because Trump retweeted his gif. What if they'd found nothing other than that "hilarious," harmless gif? NOTHING. Nothing would have happened. But voila, investigative reporting found that the same guy who thought it was hilarious to make a gif of Trump smacking down CNN also happened to be a bigoted, racist, disgusting person in general. (Wonders never cease.) To quote nighttimer: THAT'S NEWS. No, that's not news and the fact that CNN thought it was is illustrative of their poor judgment and stupidity. Going to an internet board called, "I'm Going to Hell for This" which states in its description that the entire point of the board is for people to post the most vile things they can think of, and then being surprised that people on that board dedicated to posting awful things are posting awful things is about as stupid as going to a board called "Fuji Apples are Delicious!" with a description that says "post about how much you love fujis!" and being shocked that there are people there posting about how much they love Fuji apples. I disagree. The stated "theme" (even with a mea culpa of sorts) of an internet forum does not mitigate the awfulness of the posts therein. This sounds like you are trying to minimize racist, bigoted posts because that was "the point" of the forum, so LOL. Newsflash: normal people aren't attracted to a forum where they can say things they'll "go to hell for"... or to profess their undying love for Fuji apples either, unless they ACTUALLY love them, amirite? I honestly never got that impression. Trump retweeted a tweet; I figured he thought it was AWESOME but never thought he was fishing on these sites. Making a big deal out of something that is not a big deal, media-wise, is up the readers to determine. If Breitbart went after someone for a harmless meme, I'd be against it, yes. But if Breitbart went after someone who posted a harmless meme about them, but who also had a history of liking and retweeting and making posts about wishing Trump were dead, assassinated, decapitated, whatever... they'd have a point, it pains me to say. Wait... you're concerned about CNN, anti-CNN memes, their journalists and the journalists' families? Again, I've seen no evidence that Trump was visiting Reddit. Please enlighten us all if you have evidence. Ah, the slippery slope. See above. It wouldn't have been news if this guy wasn't a racist, bigoted troll. I have no idea what principle you're defending. If people are posting vile things, even about Trump, they shouldn't be able to hide behind anonymity. Even if it's Breitbart coming after them. It's pretty simple. It seems like conflating freedom of speech with freedom from public opinion about that speech.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 7, 2017 23:16:58 GMT -5
My issue is, and has been from the start, the worrying precedent this might set. A major media organization tracked down a private citizen who made a meme that was insulting to them, gathered his personal identifying info, and then publicly stated in an article that they might release that info if he dared return to his life of internet trolling at some point in the future. That is a very bad thing for a major news outlet to do, threaten to do, or imply that they might do. I don't get how people don't get that. Well, if you haven't gotten it in seven pages worth of posts, it's doubtful you ever will. Your concerns are based upon speculations and "what if's" and what might happen. That's not worth losing sleep over. There's enough going on in the Here and Now to fret about such as a orange-haired man-baby with teensy hands who dubbed the free press "the enemy of the American people." There's nothing hypothetical or a "what if" about Trump's threat to press. That is something that actually happened and no made-up scenarios necessary. Yet for some strange reason a geninue attack against the press doesn't bother the members of The Mighty Champions of Free Speech for Racist Scumbags; you, robeiae, Don or Vince, even a little bit. Nah. You guys are saying HanAssholeSolo (say his name!) is contrite and scared and being blackmailed and is an artist and might lose his job and may be receiving death threats and blah, blah, freaking BLAH. You know NOTHING about this guy, yet you've decided he's the innocent naif being bullied by big, bad CNN and shame on them! Maybe you should worry more about a batshit president who has labeled any news coverage he doesn't like as "fake news" and calls the media "the enemy" a little more and worry a little less about shitposting trolls. Or is that not a sexy enough topic to get you all hot and bothered about? Well, if defending the divine right of a racist, sexist, Islamophobic shitposting troll to be a shitposting troll is the hill you've chosen to plant your flag and die on, Opty, knock yourself out. I certainly won't try to slow your roll. As I understand it, the reason they tracked him down was because Trump retweeted his gif. What if they'd found nothing other than that "hilarious," harmless gif? NOTHING. Nothing would have happened. But voila, investigative reporting found that the same guy who thought it was hilarious to make a gif of Trump smacking down CNN also happened to be a bigoted, racist, disgusting person in general. (Wonders never cease.) To quote nighttimer: THAT'S NEWS. No, that's not news and the fact that CNN thought it was is illustrative of their poor judgment and stupidity. Going to an internet board called, "I'm Going to Hell for This" which states in its description that the entire point of the board is for people to post the most vile things they can think of, and then being surprised that people on that board dedicated to posting awful things are posting awful things is about as stupid as going to a board called "Fuji Apples are Delicious!" with a description that says "post about how much you love fujis!" and being shocked that there are people there posting about how much they love Fuji apples. What IS news, or at least what should've been the main story, is the fact that either Trump or someone on his staff who sent him that meme is visiting a trash site of vile racist, bigoted shit and then sharing memes from it. The story should've always been about Trump and whether or not he is visiting these types of sites, not about a single dumb internet troll. I feel you're still missing the larger point. If a far-left person anonymously posted that she thought Trump was a garbage person (she'll get no argument from me) and shared a satirical meme about Breitbart that really wasn't all that bad, but Breitbart decided to be the snowflakes they often are and hunt this person down and do what CNN did, I would be bothered by that. And, if the meme the person shared was not bad, but Breitbart was making a big deal of it, and we all know that internet trolls are going to mercilessly harass the person and probably send death threats, then I would hope you would be against that. Because of really poor wording added by an editor that came off to many people on the left and the right as a veiled threat, there are other vicious trolls now threatening and harrasing CNN journalists and their families and there are dozens of new anti-CNN memes spreading on the internet. They should've just let it go and focused on more important issues, like why Trump was apparently visiting hateful Reddit forums in the first place. There are likely millions of internet trolls out there. Swatting down one unimportant, anonymous troll was a dumb and pointless exercise in whack-a-mole, imo, and backfired on them. I do so love it when people whom apparently have never stepped foot in a newsroom or ever sat in an editorial meeting or decided what will lead and what goes above the masthead and what goes inside and where it goes and essentially have zero understanding of what news is and how these decisions are made, get all puffed up and say pompous stuff like, "They should've just let it go and focused on more important issues" and "that's not news." As if THEY know what's important and THEY know what's news. Then for the coup de grace they proclaim a news organization is "stupid" and is exhibiting "poor judgment," never once evincing the clarity of thought to realize they are defending the indefensible, nor the self-awareness and humilty to realize they really don't what the hell they're talking about when they try to talk about journalism. Nothing good happens when you don't stay in your own lane. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
|
|