Slashdot Mirror
CNN Warns It May Expose An Anonymous Critic If He Ever Again Publishes Bad Content (theintercept.com)
New submitter evolutionary writes: CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant. After an apology was given by the Reddit user (possibly under fear upon discovering CNN had his identity), CNN stated: "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change." The story stems around Trump's July 2nd tweet, which includes a video showing him wrestle and takedown someone with a photoshopped CNN logo on their head. The video was accompanied by the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN reportedly tracked down the Reddit user who claimed credit for the tweet and announced they would not publicize the user's identity since they issued a lengthy public apology, promised not to repeat the behavior, and claimed status as a private citizen. However, as The Intercept reports, "the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user's real name if this behavior changes in the future: '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.'"
What the fuck?
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Wow did CNN mess up. And that Cuomo guy truly screwed the pooch* You would think that growing up in a political family, with a Governor for a father and a brother that he wouldn't step in it so badly.
:)
What a colossal failure on the part of CNN.
* Yeah. The first time I ever used that expression.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
The guy admitted to them he's a troll, and asked them not to publish his real name because of the potential negative impact his trolling would have on his real life. They said ok, but if you start trolling again we may not be willing to withhold your name.
What's the better option? What they did, or publish and be damned (with probably at least a bunch of harassment for the guy), or withhold the name but not tell him they might publish in future if he keeps it up? I think they chose a reasonable course.
Remember this when an outlet claims to be anti-doxxing (or anti-harassment, or anti-racism, or anti-etc.) . . . they're full of shit unless they're against it happened to BOTH (read: all) sides.
So the gif is re-tweet by Trump.
CNN got someone to find out where it came from.
Journalist tracks down person who created it.
They find out he's a racist piece of shit.
They try to contact him.
He freaks the fuck out and deletes everything and apologies.
He then contacts CNN apologizing and begs them not to name him.
CNN find him genuine and agree, and publish his account of things.
CNN reserve the right to publish his name in case he renegs (e.g. 'haha CNN so dumb I played them')
I see no problem here
Does CNN not realize that there is a Constitutional right to troll without facing any consequences? It's right there in Article XII of the Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
He/She created the video. Didn't just repost it.
CNN did its job. It investigated who put up the video, just like they have done in every other situation. When they found the person, they confronted them and gave them time to explain.
The person, not having the convictions of their actions, agreed to withdraw the video and apologize because, and something not stated in this particular article, he didn't want to bring shame to his family.
As always, he claimed the anti-semitic remarks he regularly posted weren't really who he was, nor was he in any way proud of what he had done.
Of course that's not what he said when the video went up:
After Trump tweeted the video on Sunday, "HanA**holeSolo" took to Reddit to say he was "honored," writing "Holy sâ"!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my sâ"post but the MAGA EMPORER himself!!! I am honored!!" MAGA is an acronym for the President's campaign slogan: Make America great again."
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.
Interestingly, moderators removed the entire apology from the sub group after it was posted.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kind of amazing that CNN is actually capable of doing investigations on their own. Here I didn't think they had it in them. After all, they've been hammering the Trump Russian Collusion story for MONTH after MONTH with such slim evidence in the face of mounting evidence that their supposed version of the events didn't/couldn't have actually happened....
So, now that Trump Tweets a link to a video, they are going all investigative reporter on some reedit user who actually made the video to amuse his followers? Then, once they find out who it is, go all out threatening some teenager who DARED to poke fun?
You idiots over there at CNN deserve the bad PR that's coming. Keep it up and you guys are going to be out of business as your watchers abandon you in droves...
From another point of view, CNN was perfectly within its rights to publish the critic's name, as the information is newsworthy, but they protected his/her anonymity. Calling CNN's final disclaimer a "threat" is a matter of perspective (and politics, perhaps)....
When I read this article I was surprised at the tone and how they treated the troll. The attitude of the writer was, "Hey everyone! We finally caught a troll! He acts all big and bad online but once we got his name he was all scared and apologetic. Don't be a scared little troll, be good online or we will find you like we found this troll." I think the writer thought he was doing a public service, but in reality he was being a corporate despot. There are people in power who want to get rid of anonymity on the internet, and the fact is, if The Man really wants to know what you do online, The Man will find out. The thing is, this problem with Russian hacking and talk of fake news is giving The Man more reasons to get rid of anonymity online.
Shameless self promotion, I wrote a cyberpunk novel about this sort of thing called Girl in a Fishbowl
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
It's pretty straightforward. Trump tweets the third-party content. CNN sees the content and starts to investigate the source of that content -- just as any news outlet would. They find out that the source of the content was from a Reddit user. They see a ton of other disgusting content that the Reddit user also created. BOOM --
this is a real story... the president is tweeting content from a disgusting internet troll. CNN digs deeper and finds out the identity of the source of that content. The person's identity is very relevant to the story. The reporter contacts the person, tells them that they know who he is and what he did. The troll rightly freaks out, sends a letter of apology, and makes an impassioned plea that he won't do anything like this again if CNN won't publish his name. CNN agrees to conditionally respect that request.
I don't see the issue here, folks. News outlets do this every single day of the week and twice on Sundays. A big part of journalism is digging, finding the story, finding the hidden underbelly... and then deciding what to do with that information. Every news outlet has serious dirt on a lot of people that they don't release. Many times, those people ask the news outlets not reveal their identities. Sometimes the news outlet says yes. Sometimes the news outlet says no.
CNN is not going to release this guy's name -- although they certainly could have as it is pertinent to the story. But the bigger story here is that (yet again), the President does some completely moronic and non-presidential on Twitter.
If the idiotic photograph of the Trump beheading had blurred out Kathy Griffin's face... the news outlets would have (rightly) dug deep to expose who was in the photograph and who took the photograph. I'm sure they would have called her up saying, "We know who you are, we know what you did." I'm sure Kathy Griffin would also made an impassioned plea to that news outlet.
There are consequences in everything you do. If you act like a complete idiot... and it becomes newsworthy... then you'd better watch out. Because a world of hurt is coming down on you.
Exercise free speech in an unpopular way, media outlet threatens to dox you.
Bitch about being doxxed
Remember kids, it's only bad if your opponent does it
CNN said that they tried to contact him first then he put up his apology the next day.
The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit.
On Monday, KFile attempted to contact the man by email and phone but he did not respond. On Tuesday, "HanA**holeSolo" posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html
Where is CNN saying that "he called them to apologize first?" Even your own link has CNN saying that they attempted to contact him first. You make it seem like CNN is saying the guy called them up out of the blue to apologize but that's not what CNN is saying.
And another view is that CNN pursued a mater of public interest (the video) discovered the originator, investigated their history and found out they routinely posted anti-Semitic and racist posts, discovered who that person was and contacted them for comment. Even 1 year ago they would have published his name without a second thought (just like Fox News or any other publication).
The guy then contacted CNN and convinced them to withhold his name, they did so but noted that if he continued to be a story of interest due to his postings that they wouldn't withold his name again. There is nothing untoward about that, would you have felt better if they just named him without a second thought like they and everyone else would have even a year ago?
I'm just happy we made some progress and they didn't name him straight away. Personally I'm torn about this, I believe people who post stuff like that should be outed to their family and friends so that the people they associate with can know what that person really thinks. But at the same time I don't think people should lose jobs over stuff posted on the internet and I don't believe anyone needs to be national news for views like that.
It's funny how when the bully's get bullied back, they suddenly don't like it.
This isn't bullying it is blackmail which in many countries is an actual crime. Had CNN just revealed his name as part of a news story you could classify that as bullying (mess with us and suffer the consequences). Where they crossed the line, and arguably committed a crime, is when they threatened to do this unless he continues to do what they want.
This does fit the definition of blackmail.
"We have some information about you and it would bad for you if we published it, so do as we say or we will publish it"
It's the same as, say, taking a photo of somebody with a girlfriend and then asking him for money for not showing the photo to his wife.
No, you dipshit, that's not what fiduciary responsibility entails. The way stockholders get rid of leadership that doesn't maximize profits is voting in new leadership. What executives can get in trouble for is embezzlement, cronyism, or otherwise treating the company as their personal piggybank.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So CNN is willing to let their reporters go to jail to protect the anonymity of a source, but if you are critical of CNN they will doxx you. Nice
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I know this isn't the most trustworthy news source, but here it is:
The first part of that statement is fine but that second part is as clear a theat as you'll likely ever see printed by a (once) reputable news agency.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Liberal Elite Media. This is no different than Antifa Riots over speakers at colleges, and Bernie Bros shooting/killing people they hate.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Has anyone ever bothered to count the number of caricature troll videos, gifs, and pictures that troll political leaders such as GWB, Obama, Clinton, and yes Trump?
None of them have ever previously had their work endorsed by the president himself. This is nothing to do with some random on the internet mocking CNN. In fact the video could be seen just as easily to be mocking Trump, if not for the context of who retweeted it.
It's the fact that the president endorsed it, and by implication appearing to condone violence against journalists, that made this newsworthy. The creator of the video, along with anti-semitic and other comments, is now irrevocably linked to the story as well. Perhaps somewhat unfairly, unless it turns out that Trump is knowledgable of more of his "work" than this video.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I believe fraud was already proven several times:
CNN reported that James Comey would testify he did NOT tell Trump that he wansn't under investigation. The next day Comey, under oath said that he told Trump he was not under investigation several times.
3 CNN "journalists" were forced to resign (read fired) for publishing a false story about a Trump associate that was totally baseless. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
A CNN producer was caught on hidden camera admitting that the Trump Russia scandal was BS: http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/...
Van Jones, a former Obama lackey and CNN contributor was also caught on undercover camera admitting the same thing: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Pretty sure you would win that case plus legal fees plus counter suit damages for frivilous suit from CNN...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
By CNN's own description of the timeline the apology came AFTER they attempted to contact him several times, including directly by phone.
There was no question that at the time of the apology he knew CNN knew his identity.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Assange exposes "public servants" who should be accountable to us, not private citizens goofing around on the web.
Then why is it repeated on CNN's page? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07...
The claim that making a gif of a CNN logo being wrestled is the same thing as threatening violence against the media is such a stupid statement I'm not even sure where to start.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Making a gif of the CNN logo being wrestled is in no way the same thing as threatening violence.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
/me keeps looking...
The real cure for your ignorance would be to read.
Extortion Statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. (last emphasis mine)
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"I find the content of the video and the opinions obviously held by its creator abhorrent and objectionable, but the ability to express ones ideas without fear is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of civilization. This kind of intimidation is bullshit when a private citizen does it, and it's even more bullshit when a corporate entity puts the weight of their assets behind it."
1st amendment only protects against the government going after you for what you say. You still have to face the consequences of what you say in the public domain.
"Whats that saying? I disagree to no ends with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?"
What it says, is that if you have something negative to say, own up to it. I believe that the guy that made that video and stated those comments has every right to state his opinion even though others may find what he has to say vulgar. It is also my right to state he is an a-hole that should grow a pair and man up to the consequences of his actions. I mean, CNN found the unflattering crap he posted, found his real name, talked to the guy and found out the guy didn't want what he stated to get out because that would prove that he is just another a-hole spewing hate on the interwebs and so they gave him an out. And people like you think that CNN is the bully here? Dang boy; get a freaking grip.
cry fowl
What's the matter, too chicken to take the heat?
Follow this (probably ill-conceived) logic:
The easiest thing for CNN to do would have been to ignore it. Now a publicly traded company is threatening minors over a dumb meme. People will lose their jobs. Also, someone will find this kid and ruin is life, just because.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
No, that's hypocrisy.
The bill of rights does not give anyone any rights. The right to say whatever the fuck you want is a natural "god-given" right. The 1st amendment is a promise (often broken) by the federal government not to take away or limit that right.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
I don't make racist or anti-Semitic comments when I'm "blowing off steam" or for the "lulz", I don't belittle people to make myself feel better. If you do this you should be perfectly happy with your friends, neighbors and family members finding out you do it. If you are embarrassed or ashamed for doing this shit then you KNOW what you are doing is wrong.
I'm not ashamed or afraid of anything I've posted becoming attached to my real name, are you? If you are you should grow the fuck up and stop being an asshole.
You're an idiot.
Accusing CNN of fraudulent news is the exact definition of slander, or libel if you prefer. It is directly damaging to the company to be accused of not truthfully doing the job for which they charge.
Definition of slander
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
What did you think it meant?
CNN has no privacy agreement or obligation to keep this person's ID private. Inasmuch as this person has caused a media event thanks to their creative editing, they have made themselves into a newsworthy subject and thus CNN Is well within norms of journalism to reveal who it is.
For that matter, so is any other part of the media. If any of them also have the identity, then there is ground to attempt to interview them as part of a news story.
TL;DR version: this person has no expectation of privacy thanks to a news event they helped create. If you want privacy, don't do shit like this or at least be better at hiding who the fuck you are.
Sig for hire.
The guy has been advocating for violence against minorities. His identity should have been revealed. And CNN didn't do anything special since any idiot could have done the same, all his information is public
Purely in the interest of fairness, there are archives from Reddit of his account that indicate that he's at least 27 and more likely 30-something, if the comments are to be believed. I don't know where that rumor started, but I prefer when people back that with facts and there are enough damning facts for CNN as is without adding items that cannot be proven to the mix.
In the end, CNN massively over-reacted to a silly picture here and I don't think the age of the person is all that relevant with respect to their threats, only with respect to a few of the statutes that require a minor.
> CNN didn't speak to hanassholesolo until AFTER the apology was made and all posting history was deleted.
CNN's own damned tweets contradict that. Many images abound of this with archive.is links that can be verified.
This happens over and over. Trump does something absolutely reprehensible and indefensible, but one of the accusers did something slightly wrong, and Trump and all his lackeys start obsessing over the minor misdeed so that people stop talking about Trump's problem.
Trump spends months going after Muslims and Mexicans and is greeted with joy by white supremacists. Then Clinton (fairly accurately) calls about half of his supporters deplorable and gets pilloried by the right for stereotyping.
Trump is accused of multiple sexual assaults and rapes, so starts talking about Clinton's husband's misdeeds.
Comey testifies how Trump tried to extract a loyalty pledge from him and asked him to stop investigating Flynn, so Trump and allies start talking about the non-issue of Comey leaking his own private memos to a newspaper.
Now Trump is again caught repeating stuff that originated with racists, and so obligingly everyone is throwing up the smokescreen of the circumstances under which the racist apologized.
It doesn't matter.
Trump, once again, is repeating information that started out with some pretty reprehensible racists. If your buddy starts repeating a bunch of Hitler quotes your response shouldn't be "well he's not repeating the nasty stuff about Jews so I guess it's fine", you should be "WFT? Has he been talking to NAZIs? What's he got into his head that he's smart enough not to repeat to me?!?"
If you're an American then far-right extremists are among your President's biggest influences, this is the thing that should concern you.
I stole this Sig
I'm a good boy and I don't have any bad thoughts. I don't see why anyone on the internet would want to hide their real name. I use facebook and post all my private info there.
Blacks don't really bring crime and violence into communities they move into. Illegals didn't really take a good chunk of the lower class jobs in America. CNN isn't really run from the top down by Jews, and Jews aren't really tribal and nepotistic.
It's all racism, bigotry, and anti-semitism.
His speech is free and protected, he can say whatever he likes. At present he has no right to anonymity and CNN are reminding him, and all trolls, using this example, that their unattributed free speech can become attributed free speech real fast. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Speech has power, and should remain free, but use of that power has consequences, you can change minds, policies and even governments with speech, you can inspire, offend or pacify as you wish. Currently, you don't have the right to speak and impact the world, to deliver consequence unto others free of societies judgement, just free of the laws judgement. And that's as it should be, free speech should be a dialogue, not a monologue. terrorists, dictators and supervillains monologue, democracies debate.
Wow, even for a trumpanzee you are bottom of the barrel uneducated. Do you know what the moral of the Caesar play is? That political murder never brings about the change you want to see. The play tells you that you shouldn't murder Trump because that will only make things worse (in this case hasten the demise of Rome).
Kathy Griffin got fired for that sketch, so clearly it wasn't OK. Did you not read the followup on that story?
You picked the two dumbest examples possible, both showing the opposite of what you thought.
Trumpanzees, man...
What? Of course I argue against human rights as an inherent concept. It is something a society decides upon - nature doesn't care one bit.