See, point 1 is the one I'm not sold on. Internet users who create memes is a very broad catch all that conflates the medium with the message. I feel like that's like saying threatening someone who wrote a letter saying "F you CNN" has now suddenly attacked all letter writers, which is of course silly. This notion of "the internet" usually refers to a specific class of highly active social media posters online. Those who fall into either category can generally be said to be:
1) In white collar or professional occupations or unemployed in middle class homes
2) Having surplus time on their hands
3) Possessing knowledge and fluency on how to use digital tools
4) Well networked in person and/or online with users of similar backgrounds
These characteristics are what it takes to boost messages. It's a decidedly petite-bourgeois collective, not a group of "little guys" for the most part. Traditionally, the media was supposed to be the advocate for this class and the working class, but in recent years it's come to be perceived as more of an instrument for the ruling class and to a lesser extent the bourgeoisie proper. So the solidarity around a content creator/remixer who is part of this class is mostly reactionism against that shift. In reality, since no one knows the user's identity at present, no one knows whether exactly they are an agent of the state, an innocent kid in their mom's basement or a hired ad executive. Immediately embracing them as part of the nebulous "internet" means they are one of some vague "us" when they may be anyone. It's a dangerous trend, in my view, that gives too much benefit of the doubt to agenda peddlers. And in this particular case, since the head of state and his acolytes are using it to stoke discontent against their critics in broadcast media, it seems like it should be greeted with some skepticism.
We know that people have been paid to boost signals and create inflammatory content even in our own beloved sport of MMA, to say nothing of in the lead up to last year's election. Bearing that in mind it's prudent to ask who really benefits from a narrative of battle between "the internet" and institutional media.
I'm pretty tired so this might not come out right, sorry if it doesn't make sense
First off, if an anonymous person wrote a letter to CNN that says fuck you, then employees of CNN track down this person, then CNN releases a tweet that this person has apologized and because of that they will not release their identity, but if CNN is offended again they will release private information of a private citizen
if it happened like that, I believe that would be a threat to any person who has the ability to write in an offending letter to cnn
By making that threat/warning public, I personally take that a threat to all of us. when I read that tweet, I read it as, if any of us offend them, they feel it's fine to target us and release our information
I can respect if you can't see it like that, but I can tell you 100% personally, that's why I flipped out and have participated to a certain degree
"The internet" isn't refering to just people in those 4 categories, come on
1 - what about late high school people who have jobs working at McDonald's?
What about people like myself who are really good on computers but have always worked "blue collar" jobs because we like to use our hands and build things?
I could keep going, but this one is way off
2 - surplus of time isn't true either, it really doesn't take that much time to follow various social media and participate on forums like 4chan
3 - this one I agree to a point, you won't see many people 60+ being in that community but these days, anybody under 30 either has the knowledge to use digital tools, or they have the knowledge of where to look to find out how to use those tools
4 - I don't think you need to be well connected at all. all you have to do is follow the right couple people, lurk 4chn and Reddit and you really never have to interact with anybody ever
It doesn't even have to be people who are doing the memes, doxxings or have ever gone on 4chan to see how CNN is in the wrong and this needs to be stopped imo
I think you have it backwards man, even if a couple guys are not what you would consider "the little guy", the large majority is imo
Interesting you bring up the story could not be as it seems. there is an interesting theory going around that the Twitter account is either a fabrication or controlled by CNN, remember trumps tweet has a different meme than the one alleged to have been created by the person CNN threatened.
Theory goes that CNN saw this as a way that could scare people away from doing these memes but it blew up in their face
Really who knows
I see it as a way of them trying to censor the internet which I am strongly against
I've been wrong before though
@Yossarian summed it up well. They're getting down in the mud when they should just be reporting. I wouldn't doubt the decision to investigate that user and make it public was just a couple people being like "yknow what, F this guy. Let's ruin this a-hole's day" which was essentially them taking the bait.
