I don't think my boss would fire me if he read every single thing I've posted here and on Reddit, and Facebook (maybe barring posts made during work hours)
I'm glad for you. Shall we out every closeted person in the Bible Belt? Several of my friends and co-partners would be ever so fucked.
GasBandit
Staff member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Ah well the thing is that people that spout anti-semetic propaganda aren't the same as closeted people. I know it's not immediately clear, but if you look really closely you'll see the subtle distinctions between the two.
It damn well better not be.
Indeed, it's been a hallmark of our freedom of the press that they are free to identify people in all but a few cases (there's a blanket law protecting the identity of children, and when courts rule in individual cases to protect the identity of a victim of crime) .
So, we've gone a few hundred years with freedom of speech right alongside that freedom of the press. It's always been, you can say what you want but you have zero expectation of anonymity. The internet doesn't change this: You can say whatever you want, but if someone wants to identify you they are free to do so. Doxxing, though, is beyond that. And it's nothing truly new, either. It's harrassment.
So I'm with blotsfan when he says CNN should have just identified the man. That's journalism (even if it's petty, personal journalism).
Threatening to release his name isn't.
Anonymity for people I deem "good" and no anonymity for people that I deem "evil." Got it!
Hint: neither are evil (at least one set (probably) are misguided), and both deserve to choose themselves whether to be anonymous or not.
GasBandit
Staff member
The point he's trying to make is you need to be careful what practices you deem permissible, because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and they can be used against those you would not like to see harmed.
Doxxing is just internet lynch mobbery. But as I said, I find it completely unsurprising that you completely adhere to the stereotype. Nothing's too bad for the enemy, and anything and everything done in the name of things I agree with is acceptable, amirite?
Glenn Greenwald wrote a pretty decent (and not long) take on the issue: The Intercept: CNN Warns It May Expose an Anonymous Critic if He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content
What the others have said is pretty much what I was going for.
This wasn't the government doing this. This was a journalism outlet researching a story about a person who made national news and also is trying to spread a message of violence and hate. They also figured out who he was by tracking information that he publicly and freely posted about himself online. If you really care about being anonymous online, don't give out information like that freely.
Im 100% sure now he's just going to make a new account and post the same bullshit he did before. Just now he won't be found. He'll still be contributing to the growing antisemetism in this country. But thanks CNN. He really deserves a break from this.[DOUBLEPOST=1499274038,1499273980][/DOUBLEPOST]
Im 100% sure now he's just going to make a new account and post the same bullshit he did before. Just now he won't be found. He'll still be contributing to the growing antisemetism in this country. But thanks CNN. He really deserves a break from this.[DOUBLEPOST=1499274038,1499273980][/DOUBLEPOST]
Oh and fuck this. He knows what he's saying.
This "enemy," as you put it, has publicly declared the opposition party to be literal traitors, and those who oppose them to be "enemies of the people." Supporters have made public pronouncements calling for not only the arrest of said enemies, but their execution. So far it's been a whole lot of bla bla bla yada yada yada that's covered under the first amendment. But for how long?
Short version, there are idiots out there who want the other side literally dead, and are hiding behind keyboards. But what do we do when they start putting words into action?
Victim-blaming is not a nice look. Pretty much all doxxing relies on the victim making opsec mistakes.
GasBandit
Staff member
Apparently, become them.
Huh. That last sentence is the only thing I might consider inappropriate.CNN in their statement as quoted in Denbrought's link said:
But. . . is this really what we're equating with Doxxing?
If you're promoting anti-semitism online, you're no longer the victim.
That conditional is largely what people have latched on as inappropriate. There's also, as the article I linked mentions, the vengeance angle introduced by this being the same CNN that was subject of the gif in question.[DOUBLEPOST=1499276301,1499275754][/DOUBLEPOST]
But really, I know this guy is a piece of shit--there's an SRD thread on reddit with the worst of it. "Asking for it" is a piss-poor look.
I was trying to madlibs the thing and the word came to mind, feel free to substitute a better word for that grouping of unacceptable behaviors.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ooh! Ooh! Microagressions!
I agree some very very few people are evil. Most are not. He may even be promoting evil things, but saying a person is evil is far different than saying an idea is evil in some way.
Evil should be stamped out and destroyed. People should not.
To quote a wise scholar*: "It's not who I am on the inside, but what I do, that defines me."
*Batman from Batman Begins
GasBandit
Staff member
Besides Gas's post (which is hilarious btw) I just mean that there's a big difference between somebody who says things, and people who do evil actions. Even those doing bad things aren't necessarily inherently evil people. Often, they are misguided, and should be redeemed, not destroyed. Evil isn't redeemable, and thus should be controlled/imprisoned at the least, destroyed as necessary.
Basically, if you say "anybody who does X is evil," that X had better be some pretty damned horrific shit. To be Evil means you're not able to be redeemed. Saying antisemitic stuff online isn't even close. But saying that your political opponents (or random people online) are evil does let you rev up your political allies well! Not so good for dialogue.
Well then make him change. All CNN did was cost him karma since he's just going to start up a new account.
And Gas I'm sure you understand the difference between an alternate history in a TV show and a quote that represents an idea (that I'd be happy to explain without the quote if you'd like).
And Gas I'm sure you understand the difference between an alternate history in a TV show and a quote that represents an idea (that I'd be happy to explain without the quote if you'd like).
It's actually not, and it's not illegal either, websites ban you for it because it leads to harassment and other shit they don't want to be associated with. Doxxing is just finding out who someone is IRL.
OFF-TOPIC: As long as they're citizens, amirite...
How is he a victim when they did nothing illegal (reddit can ban CNN accounts i guess), and he asked them not to reveal his ID coz he's not going to do it again?
CNN should have worded it better (coz they where obviously gloating a bit), but they where basically saying that not revealing his ID because he asked doesn't obligate them to never reveal it, which is pretty boilerplate legalese.
Sure, CNN could be lying, but going by the legal standard, we have CNN's "testimony" vs nothing, so we can only judge based on what CNN sad happened.[DOUBLEPOST=1499281823,1499281745][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, like they like to say, trying to be different is why liberals are losing...[DOUBLEPOST=1499282010][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yeah, it's like how i act when i have my hood on and go cross burning with the boys is different from how i act without the mask.
Burning crosses on people's lawns and spewing toxic shit on the internet are different degrees of bad, even if you happen to do both yourself.[DOUBLEPOST=1499282427,1499282329][/DOUBLEPOST]
Dave
Staff member
Am I the only one that didn't think the gif about CNN was a "call to violence"? It was a fucking meme made for fun. You all know I'm anti-Trump but in this case I think the molehill is being made into a mountain. I DO think that Trump should have a Presidential and a personal account and never the twain should meet, but that's just me. If I were President I'd probably be too busy to Tweet, but I'd be trying to do the job instead of as little as possible to get by.
Fine then, you're just attending meetings with your friends in your hoods, because cross burnings are passée.
Now will you actually address the issue of how this is different from using a mask to hide your membership in the KKK instead of using a computer to hide the same beliefs?
Sorry, but this isn't a new thing.[DOUBLEPOST=1499283649,1499283470][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's always funny to me how people assume that, when i criticise people for a certain behaviour, it must mean i never engage in it.[DOUBLEPOST=1499282427,1499282329][/DOUBLEPOST]
Hatred feeds hatred. It inspires a defensive reaction, and steels the beliefs of the bigot, making them feel justified in their beliefs. You combat hatred with compassion, protecting the victims of their bigotry while striving yourself to maintain the compassion you wish they had. No minds are ever changed when everyone just yells at each other, that only entrenches ideology. A dialogue has to be possible.
I realize I'm sounding like a hallmark card right now.
Carebear, or rapist? Hard to tell.
figmentPez
Staff member
Even then if they'd phrased it differently. Why shouldn't they reserve the right to publish his name? They're a news outlet. If someone's artistic or political statement makes national headlines, CNN should have the right to publish that person's name (barring extenuating circumstances).
Imagine if their statement had instead read "Since username has retracted their video and issued a public apology, we feel this is now a non-story and are declining to publish username's real name. If they, however, continue to make political statements that gain national attention we may then report on the issue in full."
You didn't take it as a literal threat to shave Wolf Bitzer's head?
When you give fascists an inch, they take a mile. That's why the chief advisor to the president of the united states is a proud antisemite.
In b4 asinine comment by gas about how that's exactly what Obama did with wanting everyone to have healthcare blah blah blah.