|
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 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them.
privacy is also a right to context
i am pretty sure if we went through your 30k posts and took the worst of the worst and publically posted them out of context you would not enjoy it. its not as if you have a right to full reply that anyone will pay attention to
|
On July 06 2017 00:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:24 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them. That's a retarded comparison, I don't even know how you got that from what I said. I'm referring to the fact that posts not using your name shouldn't be connected to your name unless you want it to why? at the very least, just cuz you didn't use your name wouldn't prevent you from criminal or civil liability for your actions; which would include connecting it to your name.
That should only work when no laws are violated, and the poster in question clearly has not violated any laws
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:22 Danglars wrote:
I never really expected so much of TL to side with the right to doxx if the anonymous speech is sufficiently racist or distasteful. Free speech is getting overshadowed by the short-sighted that can't see how backward "being held accountable for your speech" is very little removed from mob justice.
If we were living in a world where a hateful mob burned down the houses of right wing folks while they slept without any response from the police etc then the whole doxxing thing (which didn't happen in this case but whatever) might be a problem because it's being used as a tool for political violence, not simply asking that they own their own words.
Not convinced we do live in that world though.
If he regularly attended Klan meetings I doubt many people would be insisting that his community membership is his own business. The fact that instead he spends his night bitching about "niggers" with a bunch of like minded individuals he met online is not much different to me. If you don't want people to think that you did something then don't publicly do the thing.
|
On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech.
Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says.
|
On July 06 2017 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:22 Danglars wrote:
I never really expected so much of TL to side with the right to doxx if the anonymous speech is sufficiently racist or distasteful. Free speech is getting overshadowed by the short-sighted that can't see how backward "being held accountable for your speech" is very little removed from mob justice. If he regularly attended Klan meetings I doubt many people would be insisting that his community membership is his own business.
I would  . How is it news that some random individual has fringe beliefs? Pro tip: it's not. It's a corporation bullying an individual. He made a meme.
|
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence
|
On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says.
A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please?
|
On July 06 2017 00:29 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:26 zlefin wrote:On July 06 2017 00:24 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them. That's a retarded comparison, I don't even know how you got that from what I said. I'm referring to the fact that posts not using your name shouldn't be connected to your name unless you want it to why? at the very least, just cuz you didn't use your name wouldn't prevent you from criminal or civil liability for your actions; which would include connecting it to your name. That should only work when no laws are violated, and the poster in question clearly has not violated any laws
hence why I said at the very least. I'm happy with you amending your previous statement to fix the error in it.
the larger issue is trickier, though i'd still say a blanket guarantee of anonymity shouldn't be done. figuring out which path leads to the best social outcomes is very tricky.
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:18 plasmidghost wrote:On July 06 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote:
I'm sure at some point all these right wingers complaining about CNN will realize that this can easily be resolved with a little personal responsibility. All he has to do is post his own name and own his own words and they'll be powerless. Their threat is literally just that he might be held accountable for his actions. Yeah, no. Everyone has a right to privacy and this is no exception A public forum visible to everyone where people create an ID before posting and use that ID over and over to post seems an odd place to demand a universal right to privacy. But okay. Please cease reading my posts. I intend them to be private communications and do not wish you to read or respond to them. privacy is also a right to context i am pretty sure if we went through your 30k posts and took the worst of the worst and publically posted them out of context you would not enjoy it. its not as if you have a right to full reply that anyone will pay attention to
You're right, I would not. But I don't think it's lack of context that the /r/td poster is afraid of regarding his complaints about how "niggers" commit too many crimes. I try to get around this problem by generally not posting awful things online under a stable ID.
There are forums designed with an expectation of privacy built in. As I understand it all posts on 4chan are unlinked to IDs for example. But on reddit you create a name and that name links all of your words and actions in a single persona. Remember the guy asking a question in the last Trump/Clinton debate who achieved internet fame? We all learned that he viewed the leaked photos of Jennifer Lawrence and was a fan of her butthole. Just one of those things.
|
On July 06 2017 00:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:22 Danglars wrote:
I never really expected so much of TL to side with the right to doxx if the anonymous speech is sufficiently racist or distasteful. Free speech is getting overshadowed by the short-sighted that can't see how backward "being held accountable for your speech" is very little removed from mob justice. If he regularly attended Klan meetings I doubt many people would be insisting that his community membership is his own business. I would . How is it news that some random individual has fringe beliefs? Pro tip: it's not. It's a corporation bullying an individual. He made a meme.
He made meme retweeted by the president and then took credit for it on his Reddit account filled with racist posts and personal information that could be used to find his Facebook account. If CNN didn't find him, someone else would have.
|
On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please?
They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as.
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence
Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media.
But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess.
|
On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as.
Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN?
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN?
There's just no way of knowing unless there are any other instances of folks on /r/td being mean to CNN which haven't been published by the president to compare it to.
|
On July 06 2017 00:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:33 bardtown wrote:On July 06 2017 00:31 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:22 Danglars wrote:
I never really expected so much of TL to side with the right to doxx if the anonymous speech is sufficiently racist or distasteful. Free speech is getting overshadowed by the short-sighted that can't see how backward "being held accountable for your speech" is very little removed from mob justice. If he regularly attended Klan meetings I doubt many people would be insisting that his community membership is his own business. I would . How is it news that some random individual has fringe beliefs? Pro tip: it's not. It's a corporation bullying an individual. He made a meme. He made meme retweeted by the president and then took credit for it on his Reddit account filled with racist posts and personal information that could be used to find his Facebook account. If CNN didn't find him, someone else would have.
4chan release personal info on people all the time. If they're going to do it anyway, why shouldn't Fox?
|
On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess.
I would bet $500 that the line “CNN reserves the right to publish his name in the future if things change” was added by their legal department.
|
On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess.
If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't. I'll even bold the parts that are textbook coercion just so you don't miss them:
After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
|
On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN?
The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article.
This is unarguably the core of the article
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
The article is about the guy making a meme.
|
United States43282 Posts
On July 06 2017 00:45 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 plasmidghost wrote:
But the point everyone's missing is that the CNN reporter committed a federal crime by coercing this person into silence Are they? I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing CNN would have checked before doing it. Presumably they believe that his name is newsworthy due to him being the creator of a newsworthy piece of media. But hey, maybe you know the law better than CNN's lawyers. We'll see what happens I guess. If your condescending attitude actually read the article, I'm confident you would see that it's coercion, plain and simple, but hey, maybe you won't Show nested quote +After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.
CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
So your response to "maybe CNN's lawyers have looked into this" is that in your opinion the law in this particular case is "plain and simple".
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure if your interpretation of the plain and simple nature of the law is correct then we'll see it proven correct in the next few months. As for myself, I'll continue to contend that the law isn't very simple and that the opinion of a complete layman probably isn't as valuable as that of a legal team for a multibillion dollar company.
|
On July 06 2017 00:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:41 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:32 Sermokala wrote:On July 06 2017 00:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Hes in the news because CNN made an investigation into finding out who he was based on what he posted on reddit. thats not dishonest thats literally what happened. You arn't free to speak your mind when there is punishment coming if you speak wrongly. Knowing who said what and a news organization telling everyone what you said is completely different. Joe racist in darfur Minnesota doesn't have people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things. And they made that investigation not because he was mean to them but because the president retweeted him. As such, your characterization of the situation was dishonest. Welcome to the end of the thought process. There is always "punishment" coming if you speak wrongly. People react to the things you say. When they don't like it, they react negatively. If Joe racist in darfur Minnesota had people pointing him out as the guy who said racist things, that wouldn't be an issue of freedom of speech. Hes the subject of the article beacuse he took credit for what the president retweeted. Thats how the article http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html desribes the situation in the first paragraph. The article is titled "How cnn found the guy who made the GIF". You're trying to spin it and I'm describing what the article says. A bunch of people made memes about CNN, could you please try and find out why CNN made an investigation about this guy specifically and not the others for me please? They wrote the article beacuse the guy took credit for the gif that the president retweeted? I don't know what spin you're trying to do but you can't make the article not say what it says in the first paragraph or what it titled the article as. Oh, there was a gif that the president retweeted? Do you think maybe that could be why CNN thought he was worthy of an article, and not because he was mean to CNN? The article is titled "how CNN found the guy behind the GIF the president tweeted" The article then says the reddit users name and how they found his real life identity based after he took credit for the GIF. The article isn't about the GIF it bearly has any context about the president using it and that context is way below the bottom half of the article. This is unarguably the core of the article Show nested quote +CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. The article is about the guy making a meme.
Now would be a good time to provide your explanation as to why this guy got an article about him and not the countless hordes of other people who did the exact same thing and weren't retweeted by the president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
