You, the viewer, can't know that he isn't until you know who he is, though.
Again, CNBC's interest here is clearly not good faith, but I disagree entirely with this notion that because you post online anonymously that somehow that has implications for what the media can report about you when you take actions that are newsworthy.
I mean you can believe what you want but if you got doxxed somehow through your account and it put you, your friends, or your family in danger I think you'd be singing a different tune. That's all.
I just think that there's a public interest in knowing who DFV is. His actions are indisputably newsworthy and I think that uncovering the identity of people whose actions are newsworthy is a legitimate thing for journalists to do.
Journalists have to exercise judgment about how much to reveal all the time. When there's compelling public interest in the info - publish it. When the only effect of the revelation is harm to a person's privacy - STFU. Saying "the individual involved is a nobody and wishes to remain anonymous" is transparent enough when the person is really a nobody.
It's a "the enemy of my enemy is getting doxxed and doxxing is a problem in general" situation. If the guy was doing marketing and actually revealed his own ID - then the initial report was inaccurate. But in general the media is guilty of revealing too much about the enemies of the status quo and revealing too little about the status quo, so that's the point that matters to me, not this particular guy.
You, the viewer, can't know that he isn't until you know who he is, though.
Again, CNBC's interest here is clearly not good faith, but I disagree entirely with this notion that because you post online anonymously that somehow that has implications for what the media can report about you when you take actions that are newsworthy.
I mean you can believe what you want but if you got doxxed somehow through your account and it put you, your friends, or your family in danger I think you'd be singing a different tune. That's all.
That's a risk that every one of us runs to varying degrees when we make noise online.
:cringe:
OK so then where's the line of who the media can report on and who they can't?
I would say if the person's found guilty of whatever they were accused of, if they've doxxed themselves, or I'd they're a public figure.
But I'm not media czar and this is pretty half baked.
Fair.
I just think that there's a public interest in knowing who DFV is. His actions are indisputably newsworthy and I think that uncovering the identity of people whose actions are newsworthy is a legitimate thing for journalists to do.
Yeah I mean this case specifically he doxxed himself. He did a interview with the WSJ and have his name & city so he's out there at this point.
I'm just speaking more of media in general.
Journalists have to exercise judgment about how much to reveal all the time. When there's compelling public interest in the info - publish it. When the only effect of the revelation is harm to a person's privacy - STFU. Saying "the individual involved is a nobody and wishes to remain anonymous" is transparent enough when the person is really a nobody.
This dude's a marketing professional who used social media to move the market significantly in his favor by influencing thousands of people.
I guess I don't see why his background and identity aren't relevant here. Seems weird to me for leftists to want to protect that guy in particular.
It's a "the enemy of my enemy is getting doxxed and doxxing is a problem in general" situation. If the guy was doing marketing and actually revealed his own ID - then the initial report was inaccurate. But in general the media is guilty of revealing too much about the enemies of the status quo and revealing too little about the status quo, so that's the point that matters to me, not this particular guy.