They want to bully strangers from behind a mask
So now the guy who created the Trump Beats Up CNN meme is the new martyr-hero of the noble cause of Free Speech With No Consequences For Internet Harassers And Stalkers And Bullies. Abby Ohlheiser at the Post reports that the new martyr-hero apologized in a Reddit post, and called for peace.
“This is one individual that you will not see posting hurtful or hateful things in jest online. This is my last post from this account and I wanted to do it on a positive note and hopefully it will heal the controversy that this all caused.”
It didn’t.
#CNNBlackmail was the top trending Twitter topic Wednesday morning, thanks to the efforts of a furious Trump Internet, who had concluded that the user’s apology was forced by a “threat” from CNN. Their evidence? A story CNN itself published, detailing its attempts to contact and identify the anonymous Reddit user ahead of their apology, whose offensive posting history suddenly became part of a national news story.
Did CNN do anything underhanded to find Martyrhero’s identity? CNN [with ss swapped for ** in HanAssholeSolo]:
The apology came after CNN’s KFile identified the man behind “HanAssholeSolo.” Using identifying information that “HanAssholeSolo” 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, “HanAssholeSolo” posted his apology on the subreddit /The_Donald and deleted all of his other posts.
CNN found him via biographical details he’d published himself. Is that underhanded? No. It would be shitty if they’d done it to bully him for no good reason, but they did it after he bullied them for no good reason. See how that changes the moral equation? Apparently this is beyond the Trump Internet.
Back to the Post:
The part of the article that infuriated the Trump Internet — and people on both sides of the political spectrum, who questioned the ethical standards of the network’s decision — had to do with how CNN described its reasoning for not identifying the Redditor by name. Reporter Andrew Kaczynski wrote that CNN had spoken with the person behind the account, and would not identify the user because “he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology,” who had promised not to continue flooding the Internet with offensive memes.
But, he wrote, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
The TrumpInternet is shouting that that’s blackmail.
Is it?
Here’s the thing. Martyrhero is a private citizen who was using his private citizen status to stir up hatred against individuals and classes of people. Why should his “privacy” be respected when that’s what he’s using it for? Why should anyone else respect the secrecy of his identity when the secrecy is protecting him from social opprobrium for being a bullying harassing shit? Internet harassers are like that – they carry on like ardent believers in their own campaigns of harassment and yet they do it from behind a mask. If they’re such ardent believers, why the mask? We’re not talking resistance to a tyrannical government, here, we’re talking harassment of people who advocate egalitarian political ideas. They don’t rely on privacy for their safety, they rely on privacy for their ability to talk shit at strangers with social impunity. They want to have it both ways. They want to bully strangers online, but they don’t want their friends to know they do that.
The media has often struggled to cover Trump’s online supporters, whose skepticism of mainstream publications has evolved into a total rejection of the idea that places like CNN are even trying to report the truth. At the head of that rejection is the president himself, who regularly tweets that news outlets he doesn’t like are “fake news.” Media ethics experts who look at CNN’s article on all this might discuss it in the context of a long and tricky media discussion about outing anonymous, racist Internet trolls. On the Trump Internet, however, the subtext of the meme is that “blackmailing” sources is a normal part of mainstream journalistic practice. The difference is, they believe, that someone finally got caught.
And so the battle is raging.
Funny, when we’ve seen assorted internet arseholes use exactly the same data mining and comparison techniques to identify someone IRL, then publicly expose their address, employer and contact details, it’s all been very exciting and extra special badge worthy. The attitude seemed to be that it was perfectly ok to teach the target a lesson for being so damned liberal, progressive or FOL*.
CNN might have been a bit clumsy with the phrasing, but it’s actually quite a measured response. It’s also perfectly legal, infringes no rights and falls well within the bounds of free speech established in the US.
* Female OnLine
Interesting how radical politics comes full circle…
E.G., who’s defending Trump against CNN these days? None other than rapist hero of the regressive “left”… Julian Assange!
On the other hand, there is a /huge/ power differential between a national (international?) news organisation with the resources it can bring to bear, and some random (even if they are an asshole) posting mildly-amusing-but-in-bad-taste shite on Reddit. I think that muddies the waters on what counts as bullying and having the moral high ground somewhat. When the daily fail doxxed the researcher who stopped wannacry, they did it with data that was technically public, but distributed and hard to find and collate. That doesn’t make it ok, and I think we should be wary about condoning that sort of thing.
Fair point.
He wasn’t ‘doxxed’, Karellen, he was just traced by CNN and contacted. His name and other details weren’t made public. It’s a shitstorm in a teacup allowing a still-anonymous ass to play the martyr.
What they’re playing outraged about is the “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change” part.
But let’s not downplay what Martyrhero did – he posted that meme of Trump bodyslamming and beating up “CNN.” Greg Gianforte bodyslammed and beat up a Guardian reporter and then got elected to Congress. All this trash-talking about journalists isn’t just “mildly-amusing-but-in-bad-taste shite” – it’s potential incitement to violence. CNN itself has a lot more power than some guy on Reddit, true, but individual journalists are another matter. A CNN contributor I know says his colleagues are getting death threats on Twitter now and so are their families. This stuff isn’t cute or harmless.
Hopefully, CNN told his mother what a piece of doodoo he his.This tactic was used some years ago with great effect.
He’s not a child though, he’s a middle-aged man.
It’s a myth that it’s only teenagers who do this crap. It’s not. Plenty of middle-aged people devote all their leisure time to it.
There was the T-shirt seen at a Trump rally with the text “Journalist, Tree, Rope. Some assembly required.” Don’t know how common this is/was, but one instance is too many.
To me, the problem here is that CNN acts as jury, judge and executioner. They reserve the right to decide when Han**Solo has stepped over the line again and act as they see fit. And the reason behind this was a video that does not attack a person, but an institution (CNN).
Attacking institutions verbally is something that atheists and leftists do as well – how many “can we please get rid of the catholic church/burn down churches etc…”-posts are there on the interwebs? So if it is o.k. to threaten to doxx someone who posts the CNN-video, why would it not be o.k. to doxx some atheist who aggressively attacks the church?
And no, the fact that han**Solo also posted lots of racist shit does not really enter into the equation, because this is not why he was identified by CNN – it is not as if CNN had a habit of identifying racist reddit users.
I don’t know why he wants to remain incognito. He’s obviously a bit cowardly, but if he had been outed all he would have to do is open a gofundme or similar and watch the douchebag dollars roll in.
Sonderval @ 11 – well what are we talking about here? Anonymous atheists on Reddit posting memes of people with “Vatican” superimposed over their heads being beaten up? I don’t consider that a whole lot more respectable (if at all) than what Han Asshole Solo did. H.A.S. didn’t write an angry but thoughtful article or blog post about CNN, he created a “don’t we all want to beat up CNN?” meme. And, again, a real person just recently actually did beat up a journalist, and go on to be elected to Congress. This isn’t entirely abstract.
@Ophelia
I’m talking about a kind of double standard:
When atheists attack (verbally) the church (call for shutting churches down etc.) it is often said “We are attacking an institution, not a person”. (Ot, frequently, “we are attacking people’s beliefs, not the people.”) If that is a valid argument then, why is it not a valid argument when talking about CNN?
Yes, journalists have been attacked – so as soon as someone attacks a catholic priest, does this count as an argument that calls for shutting down the church are a contributing cause?
I’m not saying that the situation is exactly the same (it is not) – I am just saying that this argument can easily be turned around. If we say: “You cannot attack CNN because it endangers real people”, then the same argument might be made when people attack the church or, for that matter, the republican party (and did we not see exactly this line of reasoning after the attack on a republican some weeks ago?).
Of course it cuts both ways – people now claiming “HAS video was just innocent satire and fun” cannot reasonably claim that democrat rhetoric was in any way contributing to that attack on the republican.
Yes but as I said – if atheists were posting memes of people with “Vatican” superimposed over their heads being beaten up I wouldn’t defend it. Many atheists do bully and threaten feminist women, and I sure as hell don’t defend that. So yes: I agree that the argument can be applied to other examples, and I’m saying I don’t have a problem with that.
Again, I’m making a distinction between arguments and bullying. Anonymous violent memes are sheer bullying and I have no interest in defending them.
O.k. – that’s fair enough.