General CNN doxxes meme maker, threatens if he doesn't maintain apology

[Gay For Longo]

You make good points, but let me clarify mine a little.

People online obviously are not wholly comprised of individuals who meet the 4 criteria I posted above. But the majority of users who reshare content that ends up getting widely dispersed fall into those categories. So it's not just the content creators, but the signal boosters that I'm talking about here. The way information diffuses in networks is fairly well studied and follows certain rules that are pretty consistent.

So what I'm critiquing is the idea of "the internet" as breathlessly reported on in popular media, usually the blogosphere, e.g. "the internet is freaking out about Jon Jones new Bentley" or "Dana White says he's killing the flyweight division and the internet is not having it" etc. There are users whose voices matter more (to institutions) online and they usually correspond to voices that meet the criteria above. The UFC is actually a perfect example as they stopped listening to the goofs on message boards who were their most rabid entrenched fan base and started paying attention to twitter users because of their network influence among other things.

So obviously the internet is everyone online, but "the internet" as talked about in the blogosphere is usually a bit more loaded. Reddit, a popular propagator of viral content is a good example of the criteria above. Here is a link to some of its demographics.

1. Reddit news users more likely to be male, young and digital in their news preferences

Does that clarify what I'm getting at at all? As for your point about CNN publicizing their action, I agree it does come across as menacing and sleazy and a sort of shot across the bow at critics, which I'm glad people are criticizing them for. @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.

Ya, I agree with most of this
Only thing id debate is that i was refering to the same group you are when showing we dont all fit into those categories, myself as an example definitely falls into #3 and somewhat into into #2 (but thats due to my belief that everyone has a surplus of time, its up to us to decide how that time is divided).
Now the signal boosters you mention 100% fall into all 4 of the categories, i wont argue that at all.
Our difference here is that i believe you only need 1 signal booster to make something viral. I'm the small guy but if i retweet something from a signal booster and it is then further retweeted by people who do not follow that booster, that's how the small guy plays his role. and there are 1000s of small guys for every signal booster
That's the beauty of something like Twitter
It is vital for the small guy to get it to a booster in order to make an impact, so they are both extremely important

The blogs can be dangerous af, there is so much disinfo out there, it takes forever to figure out who (if anybody) is telling the truth without bias
I agree that online certain voices have more of an impact and companies definitely pay more attention to these type of people.
The reason that they pay attention to the big guys with the larger voice is because it is easier.
They know that if that 1 larger voice has a say, it's being broadcast to 1000s of their followers.
Agree completely with the last paragraph, it was most likely a couple fools trying to be big shots and are probably looking for jobs right now.
They played right into this

 

[kneeblock]

Ya, I agree with most of this
Only thing id debate is that i was refering to the same group you are when showing we dont all fit into those categories, myself as an example definitely falls into #3 and somewhat into into #2 (but thats due to my belief that everyone has a surplus of time, its up to us to decide how that time is divided).
Now the signal boosters you mention 100% fall into all 4 of the categories, i wont argue that at all.
Our difference here is that i believe you only need 1 signal booster to make something viral. I'm the small guy but if i retweet something from a signal booster and it is then further retweeted by people who do not follow that booster, that's how the small guy plays his role. and there are 1000s of small guys for every signal booster
That's the beauty of something like Twitter
It is vital for the small guy to get it to a booster in order to make an impact, so they are both extremely important

Regarding the spread of information to make it go viral, I guess it depends how you're defining little guys. I can tell you that research shows the person with <1000 followers contributes almost nothing to information propagation. But how much it spreads has to do with the type of content shared. Linked content is shared differently from hashtags, for example. High follower count users are more successful in spreading links and low follower count users with follower bases from similar demographics or stronger ties are more effective in getting hashtags trending. When it comes to an idea or story going viral, it takes about 20-25% of active users at a given time in the 5-10K follower range resharing content to achieve virality.

The odd thing though is the goal becomes getting it to a signal booster and hoping it takes off, as you say, which is essentially what media companies have historically been. So online signal boosters and content creators are in effect displacing traditional media, for better and worse. In a scenario like that there are a bunch of consequences, i.e. getting it out being more important than getting it right, vulnerability to subversion by hidden institutional agendas, bots and paid posters creating illusions of virality, etc. The "little guy" ends up only contributing insofar as his/her like or retweet boosts the shared content's numbers and moves it up in rank on people's timeline via Twitter's algorithm.

 

[Gay For Longo]

Regarding the spread of information to make it go viral, I guess it depends how you're defining little guys. I can tell you that research shows the person with <1000 followers contributes almost nothing to information propagation. But how much it spreads has to do with the type of content shared. Linked content is shared differently from hashtags, for example. High follower count users are more successful in spreading links and low follower count users with follower bases from similar demographics or stronger ties are more effective in getting hashtags trending. When it comes to an idea or story going viral, it takes about 20-25% of active users at a given time in the 5-10K follower range resharing content to achieve virality.

The odd thing though is the goal becomes getting it to a signal booster and hoping it takes off, as you say, which is essentially what media companies have historically been. So online signal boosters and content creators are in effect displacing traditional media, for better and worse. In a scenario like that there are a bunch of consequences, i.e. getting it out being more important than getting it right, vulnerability to subversion by hidden institutional agendas, bots and paid posters creating illusions of virality, etc. The "little guy" ends up only contributing insofar as his/her like or retweet boosts the shared content's numbers and moves it up in rank on people's timeline via Twitter's algorithm.

I think you are making 1 big mistake in saying "persons with <1000 followers", it is important to distinguish between "persons" and "accounts"
Just because an account has over 1000 followers does not mean that person is not a "small guy", it means that account has a large voice
It is extremely easy to get followers, as you said, the message is what people latch onto, find what message they want, start retweeting everything you can find with that message and make sure to be vocal in a signal boosters comments.
You would be amazed how quickly your follower #s grow, while doing this, it's also important to buy followers to make yourself appear larger and if able, deploy bots

During the us election, I was very anti-clinton and took to social media (mainly Twitter) and used most of the techniques I mentioned above (I didn't buy any followers, I'm cheap af) and the account got well over 1000 followers.... my main account has a little over 100 I think
I deleted that account

 

[drjones]

another ridiculous non-story blown up into a hysterical conspiracy.

 

[kneeblock]

I think you are making 1 big mistake in saying "persons with <1000 followers", it is important to distinguish between "persons" and "accounts"
Just because an account has over 1000 followers does not mean that person is not a "small guy", it means that account has a large voice
It is extremely easy to get followers, as you said, the message is what people latch onto, find what message they want, start retweeting everything you can find with that message and make sure to be vocal in a signal boosters comments.
You would be amazed how quickly your follower #s grow, while doing this, it's also important to buy followers to make yourself appear larger and if able, deploy bots

During the us election, I was very anti-clinton and took to social media (mainly Twitter) and used most of the techniques I mentioned above (I didn't buy any followers, I'm cheap af) and the account got well over 1000 followers.... my main account has a little over 100 I think
I deleted that account

I'm not talking about getting followers. I'm talking about information propagation. I'm describing research into how messages spread. I'm also generalizing. Of course a person with a compelling message can buy followers and spread said message, but without specific types of ties and numbers, generally, content doesn't go viral. There are outliers, but what I'm describing is the way ideas/messages spread online in general, butnon twitter in this case. There is a predictable mechanism to determine what goes viral. It has less to do with the message than how it's shared than who shares it, among whom they share it, and the pattern it follows as it diffuses outward. Tags, for example, diffuse more effectively from "less popular," but more tightly connected users while links to offsite content spread more effectively from high follower users who have weaker ties to their followers. I can post some research on this, but am traveling on amtrak through the bowels of Pennsylvania right now.

 

[Deleted member 1]

but am traveling on amtrak through the bowels of Pennsylvania right now.

Joe Biden confirmed.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Those who own the memes, own the power


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-hEKgyeSAg&feature=youtu.be

 

[Disciplined Galt]

Those who own the memes, own the power


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-hEKgyeSAg&feature=youtu.be

Amazing work.

 

[Zeph]

Plenty of outrage for this from the dailymail?

 

[Deleted member 1]

Plenty of outrage for this from the dailymail?

Depends on how far they went.

The lines draw tighter when you leave targeting a faceless organization to Target an individual.

They grow tighter yet when you leave simply posting your thoughts on a group, to tracking down that individual and sending them to them.

And even more, memes often make great parody like I find political cartoon, versus targeting somebody with potentially death threats or whatever they were sending to her.

So I'm not sure how much equivalency there is, but I have no interest in politicizing who should have a front page expose and who shouldn't.

The thousands of anti Trump meme makers should not be doxxed for instance.

 

[Zeph]

Depends on how far they went.

The lines draw tighter when you leave targeting a faceless organization to Target an individual.

They grow tighter yet when you leave simply posting your thoughts on a group, to tracking down that individual and sending them to them.

And even more, memes often make great parody like I find political cartoon, versus targeting somebody with potentially death threats or whatever they were sending to her.

So I'm not sure how much equivalency there is, but I have no interest in politicizing who should have a front page expose and who shouldn't.

The thousands of anti Trump meme makers should not be doxxed for instance.

A lot less mild than what the other guy said. They essentially called some Labour centrists bellends on twitter. I just wanted to see the consistency on this issue.

 

[Deleted member 1]

A lot less mild than what the other guy said. They essentially called some Labour centrists bellends on twitter. I just wanted to see the consistency on this issue.

Short of actual threats, I think politicians on Twitter are basically fair game. Their Twitter, like their persona, is barely them and in many ways more akin to a corporation than an individual. They are the platform in a way. The most righteous most awesome intending politician is someone's monster.

I don't think it's "right" really to do, but it's harmless in the sense that the person on the receiving end expects some vitriol in the populace feedback against the Twitter hologram.

 

[Deleted member 1]

They essentially called some Labour centrists bellends on twitter. I just

To be clear, I don't find that to be worth pursuing at any level. I'm called worse sometimes lol.

 

[Zeph]

To be clear, I don't find that to be worth pursuing at any level. I'm called worse sometimes lol.

Viscount jailed over Brexit campaigner bounty

Yet, the Daily Mail are running front page news stories about the left calling a politician a bellend.

 

[drjones]

CNN protects the identity of a private citizen in one of their stories but makes an awkward comment publicly that they may reveal his information if he keeps making himself part of the story, because you know - they are a news agency covering a story in which they have been targeted by the president of the United States and this private citizen... massive scandal and breach of ethics! news at 11.

 

[Yossarian]

CNN protects the identity of a private citizen in one of their stories but makes an awkward comment publicly that they may reveal his information if he keeps making himself part of the story, because you know - they are a news agency covering a story in which they have been targeted by the president of the United States and this private citizen... massive scandal and breach of ethics! news at 11.

It's because they go after a child, and the reason is even more questionable. Yes, that tends to rub people the wrong way. Does that not make at least a little bit sense to you?

If you make a joke on this board, by means of your self made meme, and somehow it goes viral, in fact, the president retweets the joke. That should not somehow cancel your right to be left alone. It was a joke after all, and the kid got met with threats by adults, from a world-wide media outlet. That has got to be disturbing. But even moreso, the level of pettiness behind it is far more alarming than the fact it was met with outrage.

I don't understand why you are so surprised.

 

[drjones]

It's because they go after a child, and the reason is even more questionable. Yes, that tends to rub people the wrong way. Does that not make at least a little bit sense to you?

If you make a joke on this board, by means of your self made meme, and somehow it goes viral, in fact, the president retweets the joke. That should not somehow cancel your right to be left alone. It was a joke after all, and the kid got met with threats by adults, from a world-wide media outlet. That has got to be disturbing. But even moreso, the level of pettiness behind it is far more alarming than the fact it was met with outrage.

I don't understand why you are so surprised.

child? kid? are you not familiar with this story?

 

[Yossarian]

child? kid? are you not familiar with this story?

It was a 15 year old amirite? Or did they have the wrong guy.

 

[drjones]

It was a 15 year old amirite? Or did they have the wrong guy.

no, he was a grown man who contacted CNN and confirmed his identity, he had also posted many other racist, anti-semitic, and anti-CNN things online.

 

[Yossarian]

no, he was a grown man who contacted CNN and confirmed his identity, he had also posted many other racist, anti-semitic, and anti-CNN things online.

CNN should not be in the business of dragging assholes from underneath their rocks, it would be a fulltime endeavor. And they should definitely not try to silence their critics even though they are assholes. I am an asshole too sometimes. And I am sure you are too. Doxxing is still just that, two wrongs... etc.

 

[drjones]

CNN should not be in the business of dragging assholes from underneath their rocks, it would be a fulltime endeavor. And they should definitely not try to silence their critics even though they are assholes. I am an asshole too sometimes. And I am sure you are too. Doxxing is still just that, two wrongs... etc.

i dont even know how to reply to this, you cant be fucking serious. you seem to lack awareness of the full story here which doesnt surprise me since most people commenting on it are uninformed. its interesting that at first it seemed you were upset because they targeted an innocent meme'ing child, but your reply moves on from that once it seems that is false...

wont anyone think of the children? oh wait they werent children? well what were they so i can still be upset?

 

[Yossarian]

i dont even know how to reply to this, you cant be fucking serious. you seem to lack awareness of the full story here which doesnt surprise me since most people commenting on it are uninformed. its interesting that at first it seemed you were upset because they targeted an innocent meme'ing child, but your reply moves on from that once it seems that is false...

wont anyone think of the children? oh wait they werent children? well what were they so i can still be upset?

Your'e the one upset here friend.

The fact it is an asshole adult, it still looks like CNN goes after their critics. They are a business, and it's not like they have enough image problems already. If people are more inclined to believe Trump over CNN, then you have a problem, and you should not try to engage in unpopular activities.

It is my opinion man, I watched CNN for over 15 years and got tired of the shit. So I don;t need all the information to believe they are shit. It's a PR problem for CNN.

 

[drjones]

Your'e the one upset here friend.

The fact it is an asshole adult, it still looks like CNN goes after their critics. They are a business, and it's not like they have enough image problems already. If people are more inclined to believe Trump over CNN, then you have a problem, and you should not try to engage in unpopular activities.

It is my opinion man, I watched CNN for over 15 years and got tired of the shit. So I don;t need all the information to believe they are shit. It's a PR problem for CNN.

CNN is fucking awful, but that has no relevance to what we are discussing.

again - i dont think you are fully informed about this topic, well obviously you arent since you thought CNN was doxxing a poor innocent child...

the fucking hoops people are jumping through to ignore the truth... outstanding.

 

[megatherium]

On a positive note. This affair has seemingly prompted CNN to reach far back into the depths of their memory to tap their long dormant investigative reporting skills once again.

Who knows. Maybe these skills will be deployed again sometime soon?

 

[drjones]

On a positive note. This affair has seemingly prompted CNN to reach far back into the depths of their memory to tap their long dormant investigative reporting skills once again.

Who knows. Maybe these skills will be deployed again sometime soon?

investigative reporting is potentially expensive, if they can fill air time for free with shitheads from both sides they will continue to do so.

CNN is mostly unwatchable, name one of their "hosts" that is really intelligent and always asks the important and illuminating questions?

erin burnett is probably their best asset (for hosts).