|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 05 2017 23:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:
What has CNN done actually?
Threatened to release his personal info if he does something? That's entirely wrong for obvious reasons.
Did they release an internet mob on him? Or did 'the internet' do its usual thing and track him down and harass him on their own? As far as I know, the internet tracked down his reddit account after he took credit for the .gif. Then a couple days later CNN found out who he was and tried to contact him. He purged his account after that and apologized. CNN then spoke with him and decided not to publish his name, but said they may do so in the future if he decides to change his story or something. See, that last bit is the troubling part. Thats basically threatening to sic an internet mob on someone and thats not ok. Why should they protect him indefinitely without some assurance from him? Should they not be able to say publicly that they can change their mind? He made the .gif and celebrated when it was retweeted by the president. A .gif of CNN being assaulted by the president in an already hostile environment. He made that reddit account and posted all that racist garbage. Is CNN responsible to withhold his name and information forever just to protect him from the consequences of what he wrote? They could have just published his name and moved on. No one would have thought differently. Or waited until another outlet found him and let them report on him.
Come on. Memes are all over the internet with this type of stuff. The guy sounds like a total asshole and a likely racist but we all know this was the equivalent of saying something like "LOL TRUMP PWNS NEWB CNN"
Making this out to be advocating for violence is a huge reach and a dangerous precedent to set.
|
On July 05 2017 23:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:
What has CNN done actually?
Threatened to release his personal info if he does something? That's entirely wrong for obvious reasons.
Did they release an internet mob on him? Or did 'the internet' do its usual thing and track him down and harass him on their own? As far as I know, the internet tracked down his reddit account after he took credit for the .gif. Then a couple days later CNN found out who he was and tried to contact him. He purged his account after that and apologized. CNN then spoke with him and decided not to publish his name, but said they may do so in the future if he decides to change his story or something. See, that last bit is the troubling part. Thats basically threatening to sic an internet mob on someone and thats not ok. Why should they protect him indefinitely without some assurance from him? Should they not be able to say publicly that they can change their mind? He made the .gif and celebrated when it was retweeted by the president. A .gif of CNN being assaulted by the president in an already hostile environment. He made that reddit account and posted all that racist garbage. Is CNN responsible to withhold his name and information forever just to protect him from the consequences of what he wrote? They could have just published his name and moved on. No one would have thought differently. Or waited until another outlet found him and let them report on him.
Protect him? Their not protecting him, anyone else is free to track him down.
But as a large corporation I believe they should be mindful of releasing personal information about people. We all know how internet mobs are and 'internet racist' or not. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed by an internet mob. That doesn't just go for CNN and this particular story but the world in general.
|
That's an interesting way to couch that seemingly limited study, but make no mistake, many a sincerely pathetic excuse will be made with stuff like that offered as support.
|
On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these.
By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this.
|
i don't see how a reservation of rights is supposedly controversial. it's pretty standard stuff. it's certainly possible that there's a little bit of implied "hey internet people maybe watch what you post and think about how'd feel if it was linked back to you", and honestly i don't see the problem with that. if you don't post garbage, then you don't have to worry about being associated with garbage.
|
I don't see the problem. CNN merely hopes that the redditor will change his way, that's not coercion.
Or maybe I have my stories mixed up, it's hard to keep track these days.
|
On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this.
Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them?
There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views.
|
On July 05 2017 23:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:
What has CNN done actually?
Threatened to release his personal info if he does something? That's entirely wrong for obvious reasons.
Did they release an internet mob on him? Or did 'the internet' do its usual thing and track him down and harass him on their own? As far as I know, the internet tracked down his reddit account after he took credit for the .gif. Then a couple days later CNN found out who he was and tried to contact him. He purged his account after that and apologized. CNN then spoke with him and decided not to publish his name, but said they may do so in the future if he decides to change his story or something. See, that last bit is the troubling part. Thats basically threatening to sic an internet mob on someone and thats not ok. Why should they protect him indefinitely without some assurance from him? Should they not be able to say publicly that they can change their mind? He made the .gif and celebrated when it was retweeted by the president. A .gif of CNN being assaulted by the president in an already hostile environment. He made that reddit account and posted all that racist garbage. Is CNN responsible to withhold his name and information forever just to protect him from the consequences of what he wrote? They could have just published his name and moved on. No one would have thought differently. Or waited until another outlet found him and let them report on him.
Why should they make that threat? If they release his info, fine. I don't think they should, I don't think his identity as creator of a shitty meme makes a difference, I don't think CNN being butthurt over this meme makes themselves look good in any way. It's not newsworthy to me, but so be it.
But them making that threat in print, that's wrong. That's almost coercion, to me. "Hey, we won't print your info, but if you make fun of us again, we'll let the internet know who you are."
|
On July 05 2017 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't see how a reservation of rights is supposedly controversial. it's pretty standard stuff. it's certainly possible that there's a little bit of implied "hey internet people maybe watch what you post and think about how'd feel if it was linked back to you", and honestly i don't see the problem with that. if you don't post garbage, then you don't have to worry about being associated with garbage.
Its not the same as a restaurant saying "we reserve the fight not to serve anyone without a shirt and shoes". Its a news organization saying "we reserve the right to ruin someones life for what they believe if they don't stop sharing those views with people on the internet".
Does this mean that if I start a news organization I can have staff members spending their time tracking peoples real identities and threatening publicly to release them if they don't do what I want?
|
Y'all are missing the best part about what CNN has done. They've just given the trolls causus belli. CNN is about to be inundated by memes.
|
On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views.
Hiding his name is, for me, about internet mob 'justice' and not about personal responsibility.
|
On July 05 2017 23:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:18 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:
What has CNN done actually?
Threatened to release his personal info if he does something? That's entirely wrong for obvious reasons.
Did they release an internet mob on him? Or did 'the internet' do its usual thing and track him down and harass him on their own? As far as I know, the internet tracked down his reddit account after he took credit for the .gif. Then a couple days later CNN found out who he was and tried to contact him. He purged his account after that and apologized. CNN then spoke with him and decided not to publish his name, but said they may do so in the future if he decides to change his story or something. See, that last bit is the troubling part. Thats basically threatening to sic an internet mob on someone and thats not ok. Why should they protect him indefinitely without some assurance from him? Should they not be able to say publicly that they can change their mind? He made the .gif and celebrated when it was retweeted by the president. A .gif of CNN being assaulted by the president in an already hostile environment. He made that reddit account and posted all that racist garbage. Is CNN responsible to withhold his name and information forever just to protect him from the consequences of what he wrote? They could have just published his name and moved on. No one would have thought differently. Or waited until another outlet found him and let them report on him. Protect him? Their not protecting him, anyone else is free to track him down. But as a large corporation I believe they should be mindful of releasing personal information about people. We all know how internet mobs are and 'internet racist' or not. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed by an internet mob. That doesn't just go for CNN and this particular story but the world in general.
How are they not protecting him? They could have just published the story without ever speaking with him. They could have just published his name in the story after they confirmed he made the post. They decided not to after speaking with him.
|
On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views.
Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same.
|
On July 05 2017 23:34 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:18 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:
What has CNN done actually?
Threatened to release his personal info if he does something? That's entirely wrong for obvious reasons.
Did they release an internet mob on him? Or did 'the internet' do its usual thing and track him down and harass him on their own? As far as I know, the internet tracked down his reddit account after he took credit for the .gif. Then a couple days later CNN found out who he was and tried to contact him. He purged his account after that and apologized. CNN then spoke with him and decided not to publish his name, but said they may do so in the future if he decides to change his story or something. See, that last bit is the troubling part. Thats basically threatening to sic an internet mob on someone and thats not ok. Why should they protect him indefinitely without some assurance from him? Should they not be able to say publicly that they can change their mind? He made the .gif and celebrated when it was retweeted by the president. A .gif of CNN being assaulted by the president in an already hostile environment. He made that reddit account and posted all that racist garbage. Is CNN responsible to withhold his name and information forever just to protect him from the consequences of what he wrote? They could have just published his name and moved on. No one would have thought differently. Or waited until another outlet found him and let them report on him. Why should they make that threat? If they release his info, fine. I don't think they should, I don't think his identity as creator of a shitty meme makes a difference, I don't think CNN being butthurt over this meme makes themselves look good in any way. It's not newsworthy to me, but so be it. But them making that threat in print, that's wrong. That's almost coercion, to me. "Hey, we won't print your info, but if you make fun of us again, we'll let the internet know who you are."
To be 100% clear they did it voluntarily, were not obligated to do so and reserved the right to publish it later on if things changed.
|
i ran out of sympathy for people posting garbage on the internet years ago. forgive me if i don't feel bad for the guy who gets in trouble because offensive and hateful stuff he posted got back to him. the internet is a communication tool, not some romantic great democratizer or anonymous, consequence-free zone.
|
People go after one another for what they believe all over the internet, all the time, and folks have very little expectation of privacy in their public identity as constituted by public statements. CNN sucks and shouldn't have done this given its size and influence, but some of you just need to add some more salt in order for the pretzel to finish baking.
|
On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same.
He is free to express himself. He just can’t do so without using his name. So now he is exactly like every single CNN reporter.
|
On July 05 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. He is free to express himself. He just can’t do so without using his name. So now he is exactly like every single CNN reporter.
Except for such petty things as "reach", and "influence", and "defining the media cycle".
|
nvm we aren't here to re kindle old discussions
|
On July 05 2017 23:40 farvacola wrote:
People go after one another for what they believe all over the internet, all the time, and folks have very little expectation of privacy in their public identity as constituted by public statements. CNN sucks and shouldn't have done this given its size and influence, but some of you just need to add some more salt in order for the pretzel to finish baking.
Actually, this isn't really true when it comes to anonymous online statements. If you look at cases that concern online defamation -- particularly reviews posted on things like Yelp or Glassdoor -- courts are affording quite a bit of an expectation of privacy to the posters. For this reason, it's damned near impossible to use the judicial process to remove an online review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
