CNN goes all in to blackmail Reddit user who made the gif Trump Tweeted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-05-2017, 07:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The people who ran in to Chris Hansen on to catch a predator preferred anonymity as well. 

Im not pretending anything. I used to talk politics and religion on FB. Aside from the high school like drama queen stuff people getting butthurt and friendships strained was the other reason i gave up on it.

Yes, you engaged in a conscious choice to abandon anonymity in so doing.  You're still not addressing my point though.  Would you post your full legal name and residential address in this thread?

Quote:A reporter reporting something that makes someone look bad is not new. 

Nor was anyone suggesting otherwise.

Quote:Funny this is the top story on Faux. Andd CNN didnt even say the guys name. But the president routinely uses names and attacks people.

Again, you're dodging the question and engaging in whataboutery.  If something is wrong then it's wrong, who else is doing it is not a valid defense.

Quote: Trumpets preach suck it up snowflake and love their hidden camera got ya tapes... But omg!!!! you might say a name of someone who didnt want to be named... Worst thing ever

I have to think this point isn't aimed at me despite it being in response to my post as I haven't engaged in any of the behavior you just described.  In addition to the question I have now asked several times I would ask another, why did CNN feel it necessary to track down the guy who created this gif?  What purpose would it serve?  How would the person's identity even be newsworthy?  If it is newsworthy why did they not publish the name, altruism?  Why are they now holding revealing the person's name over his head?  Trump's excesses do not excuse poor behavior by anyone else.  You ask others for consistency, is it not right to demand it of yourself?

[Benton]

Journalists put their name and their reputation on every story.

Anonymous internet hate mongers do not.

They should have put the guys name out there. If the creator was concerned about the things he said, he shouldn't have said them.

[GMDino]

(07-05-2017, 08:59 PM)Benton Wrote: Journalists put their name and their reputation on every story.

Anonymous internet hate mongers do not.

They should have put the guys name out there. If the creator was concerned about the things he said, he shouldn't have said them.

I think that's the part that gets me.

These anonymous posters spouting hate and racism and whatever...one gets caught (thanks to the POTUS may I add) and now the rest are so scared they are making all kinds of threats.  Again, internet tough guys who don't want THEIR names known.

[Benton]

I would also encourage everyone on this board not to post his or her legal name. As that's an incredibly bad idea. And if anyone does, said post will be deleted if it is seen.

Engage in conversations, disagree all everybody wants... but use some common sense please.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-05-2017, 09:04 PM)Benton Wrote: I would also encourage everyone on this board not to post his or her legal name. As that's an incredibly bad idea. And if anyone does, said post will be deleted if it is seen.

Engage in conversations, disagree all everybody wants... but use some common sense please.

Of course it's an incredibly bad idea, that was the entire point of asking the question.  For some reason some of those asked weren't able to say what you just did. 

[GMDino]

(07-05-2017, 09:04 PM)Benton Wrote: I would also encourage everyone on this board not to post his or her legal name. As that's an incredibly bad idea. And if anyone does, said post will be deleted if it is seen.

Engage in conversations, disagree all everybody wants... but use some common sense please.

By the same token:  If a poster made an actual threat or threatening post where would you fall on allowing that name to go to the proper hands?

Let's say I, for example, threatened the life of a fellow poster.  Claimed I knew where they lived, etc.  Provided some proof.

I'd have to assume that the mods would be willing to share my info with them...or at least if a complaint was filed.

In the more abstract I fall on the side of if someone wants to pretend to be somebody they are not and they get caught they shouldn't be surprised.

[Benton]

(07-05-2017, 09:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: By the same token:  If a poster made an actual threat or threatening post where would you fall on allowing that name to go to the proper hands?

Let's say I, for example, threatened the life of a fellow poster.  Claimed I knew where they lived, etc.  Provided some proof.

I'd have to assume that the mods would be willing to share my info with them...or at least if a complaint was filed.

In the more abstract I fall on the side of if someone wants to pretend to be somebody they are not and they get caught they shouldn't be surprised.

If a poster threatens another poster, banned.
If a poster threatens another poster and posts where they live, banned and I'm calling the secret service with an anonymous tip that the threatening poster has the missing hooker piss tapes.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2017, 09:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it's an incredibly bad idea, that was the entire point of asking the question.  For some reason some of those asked weren't able to say what you just did. 

Most of the long time posters know my actual first name around here. I actually use my real name, first and last, on Twitter and make some of the same comments I make here. I honestly do not have much of a problem with it. But there is a reason why I tend not to get as inflammatory as some. I may have some opinions that a lot of folks do not agree with, but I do keep it pretty tame.

[6andcounting]

(07-05-2017, 05:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you believe he would be doxxed and swatted if he just posted a meme and that's all there was to the story?

When it was a non-story he probably had the same odd of getting doxxed as any random person.CNN tried to pass off their butthurt as justified outrage and played up the story and said it was somehow promoting violence toward journalists. This guy is now an actual villain in the eyes of many.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-05-2017, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: But the poster does not. That's an interesting take.

He made a gif with a CNN logo on someone's face.

It was idiotic, funny, and silly. Why CNN felt they had to even respond is amazing. Like 6and said earlier that poor bastard who made the Pepe Hillary coughing video has to have met with Seth rich and vince foster by now.

[GMDino]

(07-05-2017, 09:16 PM)Benton Wrote: If a poster threatens another poster, banned.
If a poster threatens another poster and posts where they live, banned and I'm calling the secret service with an anonymous tip that the threatening poster has the missing hooker piss tapes.

So the guy Lucie was talking about was Trump?!?!?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-05-2017, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you engaged in a conscious choice to abandon anonymity in so doing.  You're still not addressing my point though.  Would you post your full legal name and residential address in this thread?




Nor was anyone suggesting otherwise.



Again, you're dodging the question and engaging in whataboutery.  If something is wrong then it's wrong, who else is doing it is not a valid defense.



I have to think this point isn't aimed at me despite it being in response to my post as I haven't engaged in any of the behavior you just described.  In addition to the question I have now asked several times I would ask another, why did CNN feel it necessary to track down the guy who created this gif?  What purpose would it serve?  How would the person's identity even be newsworthy?  If it is newsworthy why did they not publish the name, altruism?  Why are they now holding revealing the person's name over his head?  Trump's excesses do not excuse poor behavior by anyone else.  You ask others for consistency, is it not right to demand it of yourself?

Funny.

I answered your question. For your amusement? No. If the president makes something i said national news. Yes i would put my name on it.

The president shared this guys message with the world. reporters thought people would be interested in whose message the president was spreading. So they did what reporters do and investigated. When reached for comment he asked for the blurred face and changed voice treatment and offered to apologize. Last i saw they obliged.

Now quit playing like i didnt answer your question. And start asking yourself why you march to the beat of the drum of right wing media.

This is the biggest national panty bunch ive ever seen over a name that wasnt released
.

Have you ever watched the news and they report a story the may not be beneficial to the subject of the story? Or maybe im living in a dream world and this is the first time someone who did something was connected to their activities?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-05-2017, 08:59 PM)Benton Wrote: Journalists put their name and their reputation on every story.

Anonymous internet hate mongers do not.

They should have put the guys name out there. If the creator was concerned about the things he said, he shouldn't have said them.

They are also paid to do so.... some dude making gif's is quite different.

[Benton]

(07-05-2017, 09:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They are also paid to do so.... some dude making gif's is quite different.

Not always (although in the case of CNN they are), and how do you know the guy isn't?

[HarleyDog]

Fake news.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-05-2017, 09:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They are also paid to do so....    some dude making gif's is quite different.

One of the present times life lessons. Be mindful what you put on the internet. Some people just learn in different ways.

Sucks the new administration took away some of our privacy. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-measure-let-isps-sell-your-data-without-consent-n742316

Instead of talking about a real issue though we are talking about a twitter meme for some reason.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-05-2017, 09:57 PM)Benton Wrote: Not always (although in the case of CNN they are), and how do you know the guy isn't?

Fair enough. Lol.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-05-2017, 10:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: One of the present times life lessons. Be mindful what you put on the internet. Some people just learn in different ways.

Sucks the new administration took away some of our privacy. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-measure-let-isps-sell-your-data-without-consent-n742316

Instead of talking about a real issue though we are talking about a twitter meme for some reason.

Obama raped our privacy. As has every progressive president.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-05-2017, 09:50 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Funny.

I answered your question. For your amusement? No. If the president makes something i said national news. Yes i would put my name on it.

No, you didn't as that was not what I asked.  I did not ask would you put your name on a post if the POTUS tweeted about it.  I didn't even remotely ask that question.

Quote:The president shared this guys message with the world. reporters thought people would be interested in whose message the president was spreading. So they did what reporters do and investigated. When reached for comment he asked for the blurred face and changed voice treatment and offered to apologize. Last i saw they obliged.

Apologize for what?  I'm not asking about his other posts, as they are inconsequential to the CNN gif.  What exactly did he have to apologize for?  

Quote:Now quit playing like i didnt answer your question. And start asking yourself why you march to the beat of the drum of right wing media.

I don't.  Odd that you would infer that based on my questions and posts in this thread.

Quote:This is the biggest national panty bunch ive ever seen over a name that wasnt released
.

You don't think threatening to Dox someone if they make a gif or jpg you don't like is rather unseemly behavior?  For anyone, let alone a news agency?

Quote:Have you ever watched the news and they report a story the may not be beneficial to the subject of the story? Or maybe im living in a dream world and this is the first time someone who did something was connected to their activities?

Yes, this is the first time I can recall a person being investigated by a world wide news agency for making a gif file.  Can you recall another that I'm missing?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-05-2017, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you didn't as that was not what I asked.  I did not ask would you put your name on a post if the POTUS tweeted about it.  I didn't even remotely ask that question.



Apologize for what?  I'm not asking about his other posts, as they are inconsequential to the CNN gif.  What exactly did he have to apologize for?  



I don't.  Odd that you would infer that based on my questions and posts in this thread.



You don't think threatening to Dox someone if they make a gif or jpg you don't like is rather unseemly behavior?  For anyone, let alone a news agency?


Yes, this is the first time I can recall a person being investigated by a world wide news agency for making a gif file.  Can you recall another that I'm missing?

Like i said. For your amusement , no.



Idk. I didnt read his other stuff. I thought i read he offered an apology. I didnt ask for it.


It is a news agency reporting on who the POTUS is being the messenger for. In certain instances yes i would like to know whose message my president is spreading. In this instance i dont care. But like a lot of things on the news they still report on stuff.


I seem to remember hearing about Obamas preacher professors etc. People whose material is used by the president or who have ties to the president often get looked at. I dont think that is anything new. And since we are seeing "modern day presidential"... Well guess what