Both are problematic. The consequences he would face are the same if he was remorseful or not. If you say “We didn’t do this because he was remorseful” that’s a clear implicit statement that if he hadn’t been, they would have. That means anyone in that situation in future needs to show proper remorse or face the consequences. That would be CNN using the threat of release of identity to coerce people into a certain behavior.
Not really. The text plainly states that if the individual resumes “ugly” online behavior, they might release his information. That’s a statement that if they don’t toe the line, CNN might release his name. That’s, again, trying to alter behavior via coercion. That’s not the same thing as saying that if it becomes newsworthy they might have to publish his name. One is a statement that is specifically requiring a certain behavior. The other does not specify any conditions for Mr. AssholeSolo’s behavior, but acknowledges that CNN may need to… you know… report the news. As is their job.
No. As I said it is a pointless exercise with no possible resolution.
I am debating the usefulness of having the debate and not debating where the line between acceptable and unacceptable lay which is the debate you claim is useful.
Rejecting your assertion that the debate as to where the “line” exists is worthwhile or even productive.
We do, do we? Perhaps that’s the problem. Some people live their lives under the false assumption that a general consensus on what we do and don’t mock or deride others for exists and is generally agreed upon. Each person gets to decide that for themselves. Don’t you see, you are basically saying that we should debate where the “line” exists yet at the same time you base your arguments upon the idea that the debate is settled and we have general acceptance of the line and I can’t follow logic where none exists.
I don’t think you can compare directed sexual harassment to a political video posted in a public forum and I can’t take anyone seriously who suggests such.
A general consensus does exist on some things. As I said, most people appear to agree that some level of disagreement is acceptable. I rarely to never observe someone saying that if you like Wednesday, you should be shunned. Likewise, most people at least outwardly seem willing to agree that racism is bad. We have a general consensus, from what I can tell, on the extreme outliers. That does not tell us what we should do with the middle ground. It’s not that difficult a concept to understand. We can all typically agree that the Kansas City Royals wear blue, and the Oakland A’s wear green. There are many shades in between green and blue where people disagree as to if the given color is either blue or green. We don’t debate a line there because no one gives a shit, but the idea is the same. It’s easy to identify outliers, things get murkier in the middle.
I said no such thing, and I feel no reasonable interpretation of my words would imply I did. I said that the consequences of having your identity revealed on the open internet can be severe, using people that Gammergate doxxed as an example. Similar consequences (admittedly with less sexual harassment, but online lynch mobs are perfectly capable of being effective without that) could befall the individual here if he were doxxed. I’m not at all sure how you got your reading. I can only guess that, again, you’re assuming I have opinions that I don’t actually have, and acting from that assumption, rather than in response to what I’m actually saying.
A debate must have definitive resolution to be useful? Look, I can tell you right now, the debate we’re having is not going to have a definitive resolution. It’s an online debate. They never do. If you think debates without resolution are worthless, you may as well leave now.
I don’t share that view. When you debate an issue, your viewpoint is challenge. You have to defend it. That means reconsidering what you think and why. That sort of skeptisim is vital. Even if you don’t change your position, you can gain a more nuanced position. If you feel there’s no value in that, fine, but there’s also no point in wandering in and informing everyone else that it’s pointless.
[quote=“Mankoi, post:82, topic:104076”]
Both are problematic. The consequences he would face are the same if he was remorseful or not. If you say “We didn’t do this because he was remorseful” that’s a clear implicit statement that if he hadn’t been, they would have. That means anyone in that situation in future needs to show proper remorse or face the consequences. That would be CNN using the threat of release of identity to coerce people into a certain behavior.[/quote]
“Clear implicit statement” is a oxymoron, especially when what you are advocating is for a “unclear implicit statement.” I mean, you’re flipping logic on its head in this point. I mean, your entire argument here relies on turning the only choices CNN can take as black and white when it’s not such a diametrically opposed situation. The response of a person that is the subject of their online investigation expressing remorse for their actions and CNN withholding the full results of their investigation because of it in no way implies that they were absolutely going to publish his name until he showed remorse.
[quote=“Mankoi, post:82, topic:104076”]
Not really. The text plainly states that if the individual resumes “ugly” online behavior, they might release his information. That’s a statement that if they don’t toe the line, CNN might release his name. That’s, again, trying to alter behavior via coercion. That’s not the same thing as saying that if it becomes newsworthy they might have to publish his name. One is a statement that is specifically requiring a certain behavior. The other does not specify any conditions for Mr. AssholeSolo’s behavior, but acknowledges that CNN may need to… you know… report the news. As is their job.
[/quote]It literally does not plainly state that if he continues his ugly behavior they would publish his name. I literally copied the statement and you are taking implied meaning, running that implied meaning through a black and white filter, and then using that particular distortion to say that an oxymoronic clearly or plainly written implication is proof that CNN is policing behavior through “blackmail” or doxxing.
Meanwhile, the exact same flawed logic applies to your conjecture that a more vague wording of the subject (CNN has elected not to publish this guy’s name, but reserves the right to) to arrive at the exact same conclusion. I don’t really see where you are saying different.
IMHO, too many sites are afraid of being called censors and so they don’t even try to moderate discussion. It’s hard work and as your userbase grows outside of the initial cluster that formed it, you have to make tough decisions about things like tone, culture, and so on that are ancillary to “speech”. It’s fine to say “no bigotry”, but what about posters being insulting one another, or running off dissenting opinion? Those sorts of things affect “speech” every bit as much as rules governing what can be said, and it’s places like Facebook and Youtube that try to police by a fixed set of very specific language rules that allow those “cesspools” to propagate.
I can tell you from my own experience here that trying to moderate by the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules requires 1) rules flexible enough to allow it, 2) moderators willing to spend the time needed to make nuanced decisions and 3) the community’s help in detecting issues in the first place.
I think you’ll find that most of the “cesspools” of the internet have only one or two of those three components, and so the system ultimately fails.
You’re right, he isn’t just another TV show host. Now he’s the #1 reality show star of all time. Charlie Sheen just wishes he had half the winning.
I said like 2+ years ago when this mess started that this would only be acceptable if he had a camera crew on him 24/7 except in the bathroom. All Americans could watch the 1hr recap from the previous day, and everyone else could pay for the premium live stream. It would have helped reduce the deficit. I still say this would be a great idea. Capitalize on the shit show.
This. Very much.
But since growth is at the heart of the business of most platforms, they break into so many sub-communities that the stinking malevolent part is a country of their own.
To me, CNN had the right approach here. Kathy Griffin is a public figure, so you’d expect her to have her name in news if she does something worth mentioning in the news. This guy made a video that he didn’t necessarily expect to get nationwide attention and stands at the crossroads of being or not being a public figure. CNN pretty much gave him the option.
Or you could say it is CNN reminding idiots who are yelling hate speech in the public square and think they are anonymous that they aren’t really that anonymous and they should think about whether they want to be yelling hate speech in the public square.
Everyone is making it out like this is all about CNN. CNN found this guy, it wasn’t that hard to find this guy, lots of sites and organizations have the capacity to find this guy. CNN chose not to publish the guy’s name. They or anyone else willing to put in a little effort could publish his name at any time.
Again, one cannot compare the two. Doxxing and releasing a name are completely different things.
Your position boils down to what we used to call a squirrel debate. A pre-emptive counter argument which attempts to derail the discussion by suggesting a prior action need take place before the actual topic can be meaningfully discussed. You began by asserting that we have some “responsibility to draw the guidelines for free speech” and insisted that “there IS a line at which certain forms of speech become unacceptable” which I suppose must encompass your guidlines for free speech. You further assert that once we have agreed upon those guidelines and agree they have been breached “it is appropriate to dish out social consequences.” This is an attempt to place primacy upon your topic of the need to debate when it is appropriate “to dish out social consequences” which is not related to the actual topic being discussed i.e. the debullshitifying the free speech debate.
Perhaps you can remember that I did no such thing but rather I came in to point out that a news organization publishing the name of the person would be de rigueur in most cases which you decided to step on with your primacy argument that we need debate where some socially constructed line exists by saying it is our responsibility to have your chosen debate. I rejected your interjective primacy argument as a non-germain red herring and my position on that matter remains unchanged despite your attempts to obfuscate your efforts at derailment with creative goal post relocation.
Just FTR, I’m serious here. No joke about this makes it more acceptable that the most powerful politician on the planet demonstrably is unwilling to follow diplomatic protocol, and undermines the pillars of civil discussion.
I fear he will get re-elected, not just retreated.
While he is shit, he’s hardly the worst world leader in history. There have been braggarts and those who have flaunted both diplomacy and civility. And they got appropriately labeled by history and in most cases most of their subjects survived. Look at the bright side.
Emphasis mine. That’s a clear statement linking HIS behavior to CNN’s actions. That’s “toe the line and we won’t release your information.” That is a threat. “We won’t release your information right now, but we may or may not have to later” is not a threat. One demands a certain behavior of the person in question, the other does not.
World leaders? Since, say, end of WW II ? Name some.
Seriously, you have to go back to royalty to find people despising diplomacy that much.
How many US embassies are currently without an ambassador?
Also, regarding both domestic and foreign issues, We’re not talking about isolated incidents, as previous posts kindly have started to remind us. This is systematic, and " impulse of a 15y old" is no excuse for the most powerful man on the blue marble.
Doxxing is the release of personal or personally identifying information about someone on the internet. A name is personal identifying information (Yes it is. In my research I’m specifically forbidden from collecting the names of participants because it’s personal identifying information). Releasing the real life name of an internet user is one of many potential forms of doxxing someone.
Yep. You seemed to agree. You said that everyone needed to determine that line for themselves. Which I agree with, and I think that discussion and debate is an important part of making an informed decision.
Nope. I said that there is an extreme end which society generally seems to agree is unacceptable. Not the same thing.
Uh, no, I said we all disagree on when it is appropriate to dish our social consequences. I didn’t say we all have to agree before we do it, because that’s never going to happen. I said it’s important to talk about it so that we can all make informed decisions.
Again, no. What I said is that the free speech debate is not restricted to if someone was arrested or not, because the concept of free speech is greater than the legal element. There’s a social element as well. Thus the debate you called moot is not, in fact, moot, and is important. I’ve attempted, repeatedly, to clarify why it’s important, and my position due to the fact that my statements were regularly misinterpreted.
EOK, I think I see the issue. You are laying the “toe the line” onto what they wrote, and you don’t see it implied in the general sentiment. I read that as using HanAssholeSolo’s own words to describe his own actions, and not something CNN explicitly used to describe his actions. Then in the sentence further away I read them saying they reserve the right to publish if HanAssholeSolo lied to them about it.
