Frankly they should have just released his name instead of being coy.
There's a big Internet taboo against "doxxing" but any justification for forbidding the determining of someone's identity through information they post goes out the window once you are involved in a national story.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I feel like there was a time not that long ago when, "local man hates jews and posts death threats toward reporters" would be reasonably news worthy and not some sort of attack on his free speech and livelihood.
I feel like there was a time not that long ago when, "local man hates jews and posts death threats toward reporters" would be reasonably news worthy and not some sort of attack on his free speech and livelihood.
We passed the standards event horizon damn near a year ago
I feel like there was a time not that long ago when, "local man hates jews and posts death threats toward reporters" would be reasonably news worthy and not some sort of attack on his free speech and livelihood.
And if they had posted it on the first place the situation wouldn't had escalated, the main problem is the "we will not because he apologized" bit, which can be interpreted as a threat. They are two separate issues.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
Why does CNN care if he apologizes for his racist posts then? What do they get from him for apologizing?
I just fail to see why it is in CNN's interest at all to "coerce" anything from this person.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
The guy has no one to blame but himself and Donald Trump. The president retweets something it's newsworthy. Tell me it isn't every one of these troll's dreams that The Donald himself retweets one of their dumb memes
So, trump-bashing circle jerk aside, it is really beneath CNN and journalism as a whole to target a kid over a meme. Period. Someone like that can't possibly defend against an organization that big.
Their little message at the end of the article was as clear as day, they bullied the shit out of this kid.
So, trump-bashing circle jerk aside, it is really beneath CNN and journalism as a whole to target a kid over a meme. Period. Someone like that can't possibly defend against an organization that big.
Their little message at the end of the article was as clear as day, they bullied the shit out of this kid.
I dunno, maybe the internet would be less shit if it was considered societally acceptable to out someone as a closet nazi who regularly posts death threats or race hate on the internet under a pseudonym.
So, trump-bashing circle jerk aside, it is really beneath CNN and journalism as a whole to target a kid over a meme. Period. Someone like that can't possibly defend against an organization that big.
Their little message at the end of the article was as clear as day, they bullied the shit out of this kid.
They did not target him. He became newsworthy when the President of the United States decided to retweet his stupid meme.
Knowing who is influencing POTUS is useful information for the public, so CNN would have been 100% justified to publish his name.
That they might do it later is not an attack against him, it's simply the consequence of his actions. If he did not want to be associated with nazi memes, he should not have posted nazi memes.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
Why does CNN care if he apologizes for his racist posts then? What do they get from him for apologizing?
I just fail to see why it is in CNN's interest at all to "coerce" anything from this person.
If anything, it could be more in CNN's interests to make news out of this, and best way to do it is the expose the identity of this person, and go through his internet history and personal life with fine tooth comb.
So, trump-bashing circle jerk aside, it is really beneath CNN and journalism as a whole to target a kid over a meme. Period. Someone like that can't possibly defend against an organization that big.
Their little message at the end of the article was as clear as day, they bullied the shit out of this kid.
They bullied a stupid racist by refusing to ruin his life by publishing his name so that everyone around him would know what a disgusting piece of shit he is.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
Why does CNN care if he apologizes for his racist posts then? What do they get from him for apologizing?
I just fail to see why it is in CNN's interest at all to "coerce" anything from this person.
If anything, it could be more in CNN's interests to make news out of this, and best way to do it is the expose the identity of this person, and go through his internet history and personal life with fine tooth comb.
But they didn't.
Pardon the pedantry, but I'd assume they very much did. They just chose not to do it publicly. Yet.
I'm with mxmarks here, I don't see it as a threat. I think they're doing him a favour.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
There seems to be evidence that it isn't although at this point, anything should be taken with a grain of salt. Evidence I saw on twitter was post on reddit regarding Hubble telescope launch suggesting memer was teenager at the time. This would make the person somewhere around 40 plus or minus 3 or so years.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Mister Hanassholesolo got a hard lesson. Thanks to CNN it isn't any harder and he can keep his day job/ career.
If internet anonymity didn't exist we most likely would have less idiots posting.
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
Why does CNN care if he apologizes for his racist posts then? What do they get from him for apologizing?
I just fail to see why it is in CNN's interest at all to "coerce" anything from this person.
If anything, it could be more in CNN's interests to make news out of this, and best way to do it is the expose the identity of this person, and go through his internet history and personal life with fine tooth comb.
But they didn't.
Pardon the pedantry, but I'd assume they very much did. They just chose not to do it publicly. Yet.
I'm with mxmarks here, I don't see it as a threat. I think they're doing him a favour.
Well, duh, ofcourse they investigated.
But it would have been in their interest to do it publicly, and choosing not to do so shows restraint atleast.
If this person decides to make himself heard again, they might do it anyway, but i don't see stating that as a threat because that should be pretty obvious anyway.
The obvious thing for them to do from a purely journalistic standpoint was just publish this shitbird's name.
That people are up in arms over the fact that they didn't, out of apparent concern for his ability to continue leading a relatively normal life in the aftermath of this, is fucking ridiculous.
There is no threat here. This person got off easy and needs to take this opportunity maybe not keep being a shitbird.
I just went back and read the actual article (which also doesn't mention death threats from this person at all, just racist stuff).
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.
"Any of that" includes:
-Private Citizen: because if this guy decides to become a talk show host, mayor, dog catcher, public servant him suddenly being a racist shitbag is something voters need to know.
-Showing his remorse by removing the posts/starts doing this again: If he puts them all back up, now that we know the PRESIDENT likes this guy enough to give him a retweet, that's news. It means he has the President's ear and is saying horrible things.
The fact that this statement is blatantly "This is why we're protecting a scumbag" - and is somehow being twisted around into "we're blackmailing this dude" is bizarre to me.
Also, the "amazing journalism" done here according to the article was reading the guys reddit posts, googling some stuff and finding his facebook. His identity will come out sooner or later, and good on CNN for taking the high road and not putting a racist shitheads name and picture all over national television for no good reason.
I work in news so I'm biased but CNN retracting a false story, firing those involved, and then not ruining the life of an internet trolls family for no news value ALL being twisted into "what a shitty place" is infuriating.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
+36
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to attacks on the first amendment.
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
It blows my mind you think CNN asked him for an apology, or asked him to refrain.
It sure as hell would be a better story if they tracked the guy down and he stuck to his guns and said "Hell yeah, screw you all, here's a racist rant and the president loves me."
But he apologized and took down his posts and said he was never going to do it again and hoped this served as a warning to those who have become addicted to trolling, and then CNN made the choice to publish a story about a guy realizing how wrong he was instead of just a spiteful shit story.
Imagine the optics of publishing his name and ruining his life, when he's apologized, removed his posts and said he's a changed person. Just fucking him over.
I mean, you HAVE to hope that some of these Trump supporters start to not see the press as the enemy someday. It's literally the only way we survive with a free press. People wore SHIRTS that said "Journalist + Rope + Tree" to Trump Rallys. You HAVE to hope that one of those guys, in those shirts, meets an actual journalist someday and goes "Holy shit I'm terrible. I hate myself for that. I can't be like that, I'm so sorry."
Maybe talking to CNN on the phone and realizing this news agency could DESTROY his life - with FACTS, not "fake news" - and they chose to instead publish a story about how he's changed now really does mean this loser turns his life around.
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:
"Fuck it, print my name"
Exactly. Because there is a qualitative difference between the two examples.
The key words at play here are "shitposting" and "nazi".
There is no reasonable guarantee of anonymity for what is essentially public political speech, nor should there be.
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
That kinda depends on just what is being tweeted.
Not all speech is equal.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
The explanation for not publishing the name, to me, reads more like somebody decided to preach a bit on top of responding to, I assume, a lot of angry demands for the name. I'm not really feeling a threatening vibe. I can see why somebody would feel threatened by it, but I'm not reading that intent, even setting aside the bizarreness of the thought.
The idea that CNN lawyers wrote up an apology for a reddit user to post is... wat.
I think it's pretty shitty that CNN did this. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but I think the 'correct' action would have been to make a decision before running a story about whether or not to include his name. This weird "do as I say or else" public statement makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's not illegal, but it still is a pretty tasteless move.
Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become. Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
I think it's pretty shitty that CNN did this. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but I think the 'correct' action would have been to make a decision before running a story about whether or not to include his name. This weird "do as I say or else" public statement makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's not illegal, but it still is a pretty tasteless move.
Illegal isn't the term you're looking for. Ethical is way more relevant. Things can be unethical and still shouldn't be illegal.
I can see arguments for not revealing the name or revealing it but this third way blackmail moral censor position CNN put itself in seems completely out of bounds for journalistic ethics.
They just should not have written the last sentence. I think that's the only thing that opens them up to attacks.
I don't even think many people would've been up in arms if later on they they decided to reveal his name anyway.
It's not like the US isn't used to "doxxing" people, anyway? As soon as somebody is even accused of a crime their full name and face is usually all over the media as far as I can tell.
+8
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Maybe I'd have more of a problem with the "threat" if what they were "told to do or else" (which is already a reach) amounted to more than "We gave him a chance to stop being an asshole and he took us up on it."
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
They just should not have written the last sentence. I think that's the only thing that opens them up to attacks.
I don't even think many people would've been up in arms if later on they they decided to reveal his name anyway.
It's not like the US isn't used to "doxxing" people, anyway? As soon as somebody is even accused of a crime their full name and face is usually all over the media as far as I can tell.
Really that's about it. The last sentence was pretty smug.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
If Trump tweeted out a meme from r/marchagainsttrump, pretty sure no one here would be ok with Fox News threatening to reveal the information of said person unless they apologize and refrain from continuing their behavior.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:
"Fuck it, print my name"
I really don't think so.
I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.
Posts
There's a big Internet taboo against "doxxing" but any justification for forbidding the determining of someone's identity through information they post goes out the window once you are involved in a national story.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The problem with your post is that is based from the assumption that the apology is actually sincere and not being coerced out of fear that his identity will be revealed....or point blank written by a CNN lawyer.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
We passed the standards event horizon damn near a year ago
Explain to me why CNN would care about an apology at all.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand why CNN would want to coerce anyone to apologize about a fake wrestling video.
What do they get from an apology.
I think that was more for his racist post history.
Why does CNN care if he apologizes for his racist posts then? What do they get from him for apologizing?
I just fail to see why it is in CNN's interest at all to "coerce" anything from this person.
Their little message at the end of the article was as clear as day, they bullied the shit out of this kid.
I dunno, maybe the internet would be less shit if it was considered societally acceptable to out someone as a closet nazi who regularly posts death threats or race hate on the internet under a pseudonym.
Knowing who is influencing POTUS is useful information for the public, so CNN would have been 100% justified to publish his name.
That they might do it later is not an attack against him, it's simply the consequence of his actions. If he did not want to be associated with nazi memes, he should not have posted nazi memes.
If anything, it could be more in CNN's interests to make news out of this, and best way to do it is the expose the identity of this person, and go through his internet history and personal life with fine tooth comb.
But they didn't.
They bullied a stupid racist by refusing to ruin his life by publishing his name so that everyone around him would know what a disgusting piece of shit he is.
Pardon the pedantry, but I'd assume they very much did. They just chose not to do it publicly. Yet.
I'm with mxmarks here, I don't see it as a threat. I think they're doing him a favour.
There seems to be evidence that it isn't although at this point, anything should be taken with a grain of salt. Evidence I saw on twitter was post on reddit regarding Hubble telescope launch suggesting memer was teenager at the time. This would make the person somewhere around 40 plus or minus 3 or so years.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
If internet anonymity didn't exist we most likely would have less idiots posting.
But it would have been in their interest to do it publicly, and choosing not to do so shows restraint atleast.
If this person decides to make himself heard again, they might do it anyway, but i don't see stating that as a threat because that should be pretty obvious anyway.
That people are up in arms over the fact that they didn't, out of apparent concern for his ability to continue leading a relatively normal life in the aftermath of this, is fucking ridiculous.
There is no threat here. This person got off easy and needs to take this opportunity maybe not keep being a shitbird.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"Any of that" includes:
-Private Citizen: because if this guy decides to become a talk show host, mayor, dog catcher, public servant him suddenly being a racist shitbag is something voters need to know.
-Showing his remorse by removing the posts/starts doing this again: If he puts them all back up, now that we know the PRESIDENT likes this guy enough to give him a retweet, that's news. It means he has the President's ear and is saying horrible things.
The fact that this statement is blatantly "This is why we're protecting a scumbag" - and is somehow being twisted around into "we're blackmailing this dude" is bizarre to me.
Also, the "amazing journalism" done here according to the article was reading the guys reddit posts, googling some stuff and finding his facebook. His identity will come out sooner or later, and good on CNN for taking the high road and not putting a racist shitheads name and picture all over national television for no good reason.
I work in news so I'm biased but CNN retracting a false story, firing those involved, and then not ruining the life of an internet trolls family for no news value ALL being twisted into "what a shitty place" is infuriating.
It blows my mind that everyone here is arguing in favor of CNN's actions.
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to attacks on the first amendment.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It blows my mind you think CNN asked him for an apology, or asked him to refrain.
It sure as hell would be a better story if they tracked the guy down and he stuck to his guns and said "Hell yeah, screw you all, here's a racist rant and the president loves me."
But he apologized and took down his posts and said he was never going to do it again and hoped this served as a warning to those who have become addicted to trolling, and then CNN made the choice to publish a story about a guy realizing how wrong he was instead of just a spiteful shit story.
Imagine the optics of publishing his name and ruining his life, when he's apologized, removed his posts and said he's a changed person. Just fucking him over.
I mean, you HAVE to hope that some of these Trump supporters start to not see the press as the enemy someday. It's literally the only way we survive with a free press. People wore SHIRTS that said "Journalist + Rope + Tree" to Trump Rallys. You HAVE to hope that one of those guys, in those shirts, meets an actual journalist someday and goes "Holy shit I'm terrible. I hate myself for that. I can't be like that, I'm so sorry."
Maybe talking to CNN on the phone and realizing this news agency could DESTROY his life - with FACTS, not "fake news" - and they chose to instead publish a story about how he's changed now really does mean this loser turns his life around.
Again, the answer to fox threatening that is:
"Fuck it, print my name"
Exactly. Because there is a qualitative difference between the two examples.
The key words at play here are "shitposting" and "nazi".
There is no reasonable guarantee of anonymity for what is essentially public political speech, nor should there be.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That kinda depends on just what is being tweeted.
Not all speech is equal.
The idea that CNN lawyers wrote up an apology for a reddit user to post is... wat.
This guy was posting in a place that gleefully taunted Seth Rich's family with crackpot conspiracy theories about his murder for a good month.
Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
Because they're white supremacists. They're not subtle about this.
It's not the first time he's repeated stuff from Alt-right websites. someone on his team is a fan at very least
Illegal isn't the term you're looking for. Ethical is way more relevant. Things can be unethical and still shouldn't be illegal.
I can see arguments for not revealing the name or revealing it but this third way blackmail moral censor position CNN put itself in seems completely out of bounds for journalistic ethics.
I don't even think many people would've been up in arms if later on they they decided to reveal his name anyway.
It's not like the US isn't used to "doxxing" people, anyway? As soon as somebody is even accused of a crime their full name and face is usually all over the media as far as I can tell.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Really that's about it. The last sentence was pretty smug.
I'm certainly not fine with someone/you becoming the target for the alt-right because they are shtiposting on the internet.