>Should know that Andrew is only up this late and arguing this vehemently if he's drunk. >Still thinks WuB is boss >Is this how 4chan works? I don't know
(Churba is a boss too, but he should stop the Ad Hominems, it would make his arguments stronger)
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you couldn't actually prove that this was in the public interest. I didn't mean to put you under that pressure, I was only treating you with kid gloves(they're made from real kids!) and asking for the very first thing you have to prove in defending pretty much any piece of journalism. You know, exactly the sort of thing I have to do on a regular basis when I'm working, pitching pieces, or trying to sell articles.
If you can't manage to do even that, then you can fuck right off, because your "oh, but you need to prove the facts are wrong" argument is irrelevant (as are the facts within the article) until you can prove that much.
Ok, I'll wait until you quit the Ad Hominem attacks.
Oh wait, no I won't because they are all bullshit.
Wait, STRAWMAN! Oh, sorry, I was just shouting the first logical fallacy that came to mind, it seemed like the time to do it. Sorry.
And yes, because facts are entirely irrelevant to an argument. How dare I bring the issue of facts into the discusssion.
The Atmostphere is primarily Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. I don't see anyone disproving this fact yet, so you must be wrong. "But that fact is irrelevant!" you're thinking, and you're right, but you can't seem to distinguish between what is a relevant fact and what is not, so I'm afraid you're just going to have to put up with it.
(Edit: Okay, that first bit, that's just angry and nasty. I'm actually sorry, it was entirely unnecessary. Won't lie and say it didn't feel good, but that doesn't make it good. However, I'm not going to pretend I didn't say it, even if I'm retracting the statement.)
How dare I bring up this when you equate this Gawker article to Limbaugh and Beck... Yes because the only difference is that the message agrees with open_sketchbook.
Nice mugging for the crowd there, the old "Take what you said, and use those words on you" trick is always a solid crowd-pleaser. I use it myself quite often.
And frankly, yeah, I dare. Limbaugh and Beck have no regard for Journalistic ethics, the harm they do, and have journalistic standards that rank somewhere between News of the World and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf during his stint as the Iraqi information minister - Which, funnily enough, lines right up with this piece.
Oh yeah, and the fact that Limbaugh and Beck lie out of their fucking teeth. You missed that little point.
No, I'm aware. Gawker is no stranger to twisting the truth either, or outright lying. Also, Beck And Limbaugh are also factually correct, at times. In fact, there are times where they go out of their way to do so, because they want to create the context around those facts, and they can use them if anyone attacks the piece, saying "Oh yeah, well point out where we're factually incorrect!"
I am actually familiar with how the game is played, dude.
Furthermore, I do think it's in the public interest to know about a man who solicits and collates images of underage girls and voyeuristic shots of high schoolers. Hell, his own wife should know to protect their son from this monster.
I'm afraid you're going to need to prove that. He was not collating or collecting, that was all Reddit, it's community, and it's algorithms. Soliciting, I'll give you, but you're assuming that he's actually harmed anyone, plans to, or is a risk to. In fact, you're essentially calling him a sexual predator, with zero evidence to back it up, other than the fact that he created a place for these communities, and enforced whatever rules were put on them.
I'm sorry, but even FOX news wouldn't call that proof for it being in the public interest to put his identity and his family's identity out there.
As you said yourself, you have to have very strong evidence to show as much. So unless you can prove otherwise, rightfully, shut the fuck up.
Really? Because you've got none, and you're the one making the claim that it's in the public interest, which is the first thing that must be established for your facts argument to have any worth - Facts or not, you must prove that it's in the public interest to publish them.
(Churba is a boss too, but he should stop the Ad Hominems, it would make his arguments stronger)
Hey, Don't small-note yourself, you've taught me a lot over time. I'd not be quite as boss, without having borrowed some of your Boss-ness first. And yeah, I should tone them down, and I shouldn't mug for the crowd so much - It doesn't harm the content as much, but it's annoying sometimes when I go overboard. Also, I lost the side-game on that one, I actually got angry for a bit, there. I should know better, and control it better, but I didn't, in this case.
I might be out of the loop here, but was r/jailbait like actual child porn or just pics taking from high school girls facebooks and whatnot? There is a difference between being a creep and an actual pedophile.
I ignored the further personal and editorial comments you made because they had no relevance.
The Atmostphere is primarily Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. I don't see anyone disproving this fact yet, so you must be wrong. "But that fact is irrelevant!" you're thinking, and you're right, but you can't seem to distinguish between what is a relevant fact and what is not, so I'm afraid you're just going to have to put up with it.
I'm still not sure why you think that the actions and posts made by VA are irrelevant. But hell, maybe apples and oranges (or upskirt and jailbait in this matter. Who the fuck knows)
No, I'm aware. Gawker is no stranger to twisting the truth either, or outright lying. Also, Beck And Limbaugh are also factually correct, at times. In fact, there are times where they go out of their way to do so, because they want to create the context around those facts, and they can use them if anyone attacks the piece, saying "Oh yeah, well point out where we're factually incorrect!"
I am actually familiar with how the game is played, dude.
You still haven't shown that this article has twisted the truth or outright lied. I do agree that the article was a bit more editorialized than I would have liked. But I think it still reflects upon VA's behavior quite accurately.
I'm afraid you're going to need to prove that. He was not collating or collecting, that was all Reddit, it's community, and it's algorithms. Soliciting, I'll give you, but you're assuming that he's actually harmed anyone, plans to, or is a risk to. In fact, you're essentially calling him a sexual predator, with zero evidence to back it up, other than the fact that he created a place for these communities, and enforced whatever rules were put on them.
I'm sorry, but even FOX news wouldn't call that proof for it being in the public interest to put his identity and his family's identity out there.
He created and moderated the subreddits. He chose what content was appropriate to the topic and had the power to either delete and leave certain material on the website. Just because he was not a reddit employee does not remove his responsibility to the matter.
Really? Because you've got none, and you're the one making the claim that it's in the public interest, which is the first thing that must be established for your facts argument to have any worth - Facts or not, you must prove that it's in the public interest to publish them.
I did, but perhaps you and I disagree what is of public interest. I know I would be interested if a man was promoting people through upvotes and popularity to take upskit images of my daughter, if I had one. Or that he was sharing jailbait images of my sister.
I don't see the issue because he agreed to talk to Gawker after they found him. If he had ignored it and then decided to "unmask" him or whatever, then that would have been immoral.
I guess there's an argument to be made here, but I still take issue with the fact that he literally begged the author not to reveal his name, and Chen did it anyway while publishing that very exchange.
I don't see the issue because he agreed to talk to Gawker after they found him. If he had ignored it and then decided to "unmask" him or whatever, then that would have been immoral.
I guess there's an argument to be made here, but I still take issue with the fact that he literally begged the author not to reveal his name, and Chen did it anyway while publishing that very exchange.
I didn't read that far. You're right.
Just ask Jason. There is no such thing as "Off the record".
I ignored the further personal and editorial comments you made because they had no relevance.
Naturally. They're not related to the argument at hand, at least, in any way that makes it worth addressing.
I'm still not sure why you think that the actions and posts made by VA are irrelevant. But hell, maybe apples and oranges (or upskirt and jailbait in this matter. Who the fuck knows)
Allow me to claify - it becomes relevant once the public interest of posting his identity is proved. They could easily be published, with equal impact, without publishing his identity - Christ, they spend half the article referring to him by his username as it is.
You still haven't shown that this article has twisted the truth or outright lied. I do agree that the article was a bit more editorialized than I would have liked. But I think it still reflects upon VA's behavior quite accurately.
I agree on both the latter points, but the first point, you're getting the cart before the horse a bit. The issue is not addressing his actions, the issue is publishing his identity. The reporting of his actions is - on a factual level that is - accurate.
He created and moderated the subreddits. He chose what content was appropriate to the topic and had the power to either delete and leave certain material on the website. Just because he was not a reddit employee does not remove his responsibility to the matter.
Alight, you caught me on that one - I did excuse him a bit much. However, I still don't think that proves he's actually any sort of risk to anyone - He didn't produce any original content, only reposted content from others that he found about the place. Reprehensible and creepy, but I don't think it quite makes him a monster.
I did, but perhaps you and I disagree what is of public interest. I know I would be interested if a man was promoting people through upvotes and popularity to take upskit images of my daughter, if I had one. Or that he was sharing jailbait images of my sister.
I think it's actually a bit different - We're not disagreeing of what is of public interest, I think we're straight-up arguing across each other here. I'm concerned strictly with the proof(or lack thereof) that revealing his identity was in the public interest, whereas you're talking about the article as a whole, which I think could have been published with equal impact, but without revealing his identity.
Ugh =/ Under Norwegian law, Gawker would have some serious finings over this. Is there no press regulation in America?
They'd be getting a pounding from the Australia Communications and Media Authority(if it were broadcast) or Australian Press Council(if it were published), too. There is regulation of the Press in the US, but it's a lot looser than our respective countries - for example, in Australia, you can be fined(or meted out even harsher punishments) by the ACMA for things like Factual accuracy, Unfair identification, Unjustifiable breach of privacy, incorrect representation of factual materiel, and so on.
But it was published! Its on a website and has a legit company logo on it. They can be contacted; they pay taxes; they have an address. Maybe they can use a loophole of saying they're a blog, rather than a news outlet or something.
But it was published! Its on a website and has a legit company logo on it. They can be contacted; they pay taxes; they have an address. Maybe they can use a loophole of saying they're a blog, rather than a news outlet or something.
It would be covered by the Australian Press Council, yeah - they both cover the internet, but this one is firmly in the APC's side of the court, IF it was published by an Australian Organisation. But the APC have no ability to deal with organizations outside of Australia.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the APC should get involved, I was talking about the American equivalent. I just think it's pretty bullshit that they can get away with abusing their power like this. And the particular journalist who decided to write this up and post it is a huge dickbag too. (Assuming his boss didn't dictate everything that went in this article)
Content aggregation with vote-based popularity for articles and user comments. Just like Digg, similar to slashdot, etc, etc.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the APC should get involved, I was talking about the American equivalent. I just think it's pretty bullshit that they can get away with abusing their power like this. And the particular journalist who decided to write this up and post it is a huge dickbag too. (Assuming his boss didn't dictate everything that went in this article)
I don't know that there is an organization that would handle this complaint in the US. You'd have to consult someone else for that one.
Okay, to my point: if you're going to debate on the topic of press responsibilities and source anonymity, why don't you immediately distance yourself from the weakest representives of the matter in hand? You're never going to find concrete examples by bringing up Beck and Limbargh. You're never going to get anyone to ignore the emotionally charged subject of child pornography. Switching to another frame of reference would suit both sides far better.
Except for Sketchbook's point. Sticking with Reddit and Gawker plays right into his hand.
They publish a bunch of news outlets. They own Engadet and some other ones.
That's Gawker Media, the overall company. There is also Gawker, the blog, which is more offbeat News and Gossip.
Okay, to my point: if you're going to debate on the topic of press responsibilities and source anonymity, why don't you immediately distance yourself from the weakest representives of the matter in hand? You're never going to find concrete examples by bringing up Beck and Limbargh. You're never going to get anyone to ignore the emotionally charged subject of child pornography. Switching to another frame of reference would suit both sides far better.
Except for Sketchbook's point. Sticking with Reddit and Gawker plays right into his hand.
From what I can gather, this dudes job was to make sure no child pornography got on a forum thread dedicated to reposting facebook profile pictures that were "jailbait"-y (and other pictures that didn't come from Facebook!), and did his job doing so. People dislike him for having taken on the responsibility of moderating that particular thread. The other controversial thread he moderated was one dedicated to taking sneak images of girls. Here he probably had to delete off topic things or things that showed peoples faces.
I'm going off second hand information from the article here. So maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any actual child pornography, and if there was, this dude actually tried to remove it all.
I think the article says it all. Free speech, however distasteful, is protected. Underage girl posts pics on Facebook? Now that's public and is posted around the Internet. Some guy posts on Reddit and his identity is public, that's free speech too.
I think the article says it all. Free speech, however distasteful, is protected. Underage girl posts pics on Facebook? Now that's public and is posted around the Internet. Some guy posts on Reddit and his identity is public, that's free speech too.
Ah, so you're essentially saying that nobody should have any responsibility for what they say or anything that arises from it, no responsibility to judge if they should say something or not, nor can they be held responsible for anything they do say, because free speech. Thank you for your contribution, Scott. Please don't get involved further, I'm already pretty sure what you're going to say and what argument you're going to wheel out.
And you're wrong, primarily because journalistic speech (ie, publishing as a member of the press) comes with not only different, but far more responsibilities and ethical concerns than regular Scott-Rubin-regular-New-York-dude speech - In fact, they're really not the same thing at all, with one being an issue of freedom of the press, and the other being an issue of free speech, which ARE NOT the same thing, despite areas where they overlap.
Or, in short, with rights come responsibilities that must be upheld. This includes Freedom of the Press(which is not, in fact, a personal right, but widely considered to be a property right), the responsibilities of which include factual accuracy and yes, certain ethical concerns. It's a freedom that has many more responsibilities, because it's a freedom with far more power to effect others, and having freedom does not allow you to stomp on the freedoms and rights of others as you please. Just like the famous statement says, "Your Liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins."
A year or so ago Scrym mentioned a new law in Europe guranteeing the right to be forgotten. I don't believe in that right. I've done and said stupid shit on the Internet, some of which on this very forum, but I don't want it to go away. I want it there as a reminder of how stupid I was, so I don't do it again.
I didn't say you can't be held responsible for what you say. I just said you have a right to say it.
Except in the case of Gawker, it's not an issue of free speech, but freedom of the press and the responsibilities and ethical requirements that it entails. Ethical standards that by even the loosest applicable interpretation, Gawker and Adrian Chen have breached - Or, in other words, just because they may have had the right to say it according to Free Speech, doesn't mean it was right, moral, or ethical to do so, nor that they should have.
As for if they indeed did have the right to say it, that's a different issue - at what point does Gawker's rights begin, and their target's rights end?
Comments
>Still thinks WuB is boss
>Is this how 4chan works? I don't know
(Churba is a boss too, but he should stop the Ad Hominems, it would make his arguments stronger)
If you can't manage to do even that, then you can fuck right off, because your "oh, but you need to prove the facts are wrong" argument is irrelevant (as are the facts within the article) until you can prove that much. Wait, STRAWMAN! Oh, sorry, I was just shouting the first logical fallacy that came to mind, it seemed like the time to do it. Sorry.
The Atmostphere is primarily Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. I don't see anyone disproving this fact yet, so you must be wrong. "But that fact is irrelevant!" you're thinking, and you're right, but you can't seem to distinguish between what is a relevant fact and what is not, so I'm afraid you're just going to have to put up with it.
(Edit: Okay, that first bit, that's just angry and nasty. I'm actually sorry, it was entirely unnecessary. Won't lie and say it didn't feel good, but that doesn't make it good. However, I'm not going to pretend I didn't say it, even if I'm retracting the statement.) Nice mugging for the crowd there, the old "Take what you said, and use those words on you" trick is always a solid crowd-pleaser. I use it myself quite often.
And frankly, yeah, I dare. Limbaugh and Beck have no regard for Journalistic ethics, the harm they do, and have journalistic standards that rank somewhere between News of the World and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf during his stint as the Iraqi information minister - Which, funnily enough, lines right up with this piece. No, I'm aware. Gawker is no stranger to twisting the truth either, or outright lying. Also, Beck And Limbaugh are also factually correct, at times. In fact, there are times where they go out of their way to do so, because they want to create the context around those facts, and they can use them if anyone attacks the piece, saying "Oh yeah, well point out where we're factually incorrect!"
I am actually familiar with how the game is played, dude. I'm afraid you're going to need to prove that. He was not collating or collecting, that was all Reddit, it's community, and it's algorithms. Soliciting, I'll give you, but you're assuming that he's actually harmed anyone, plans to, or is a risk to. In fact, you're essentially calling him a sexual predator, with zero evidence to back it up, other than the fact that he created a place for these communities, and enforced whatever rules were put on them.
I'm sorry, but even FOX news wouldn't call that proof for it being in the public interest to put his identity and his family's identity out there. Really? Because you've got none, and you're the one making the claim that it's in the public interest, which is the first thing that must be established for your facts argument to have any worth - Facts or not, you must prove that it's in the public interest to publish them.
Hey, Don't small-note yourself, you've taught me a lot over time. I'd not be quite as boss, without having borrowed some of your Boss-ness first. And yeah, I should tone them down, and I shouldn't mug for the crowd so much - It doesn't harm the content as much, but it's annoying sometimes when I go overboard. Also, I lost the side-game on that one, I actually got angry for a bit, there. I should know better, and control it better, but I didn't, in this case.
Under Norwegian law, Gawker would have some serious finings over this. Is there no press regulation in America?
Except for Sketchbook's point. Sticking with Reddit and Gawker plays right into his hand.
I'm going off second hand information from the article here. So maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any actual child pornography, and if there was, this dude actually tried to remove it all.
And you're wrong, primarily because journalistic speech (ie, publishing as a member of the press) comes with not only different, but far more responsibilities and ethical concerns than regular Scott-Rubin-regular-New-York-dude speech - In fact, they're really not the same thing at all, with one being an issue of freedom of the press, and the other being an issue of free speech, which ARE NOT the same thing, despite areas where they overlap.
Or, in short, with rights come responsibilities that must be upheld. This includes Freedom of the Press(which is not, in fact, a personal right, but widely considered to be a property right), the responsibilities of which include factual accuracy and yes, certain ethical concerns. It's a freedom that has many more responsibilities, because it's a freedom with far more power to effect others, and having freedom does not allow you to stomp on the freedoms and rights of others as you please. Just like the famous statement says, "Your Liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins."
As for if they indeed did have the right to say it, that's a different issue - at what point does Gawker's rights begin, and their target's rights end?