There’s a difference between identifying a person who posts an anonymous political statement and a…
no Way
1

That’s not the point that is generally being made however. They investigated who he was to find dirt on him, and then to find out his real identity, which is unnecessary except as leverage. There was nothing wrong with the meme itself. The same, and far far worse is created and shared daily. I’m not sure if it’s the same in America, but the publisher of content is the one responsible for it. In this case Trump was the one who shared it to an enormous audience. Not the creator. He shared it to a much smaller audience, and it was picked up and reshared. There’s a pretty important distinction there.

It was his other content he was obviously ashamed of. For good reason. But that’s irrelevant to the story, except for a media organisation basically outing themselves for abusing their wealth and power to silence and intimidate those who say something they find personally insulting.

However the media shouldn’t be finding dirt on people when they say or create something they don’t agree with. Real journalism is finding out something of actual value to the public interest. A meme creator does not fit that definition, unless you’re the kind of person who gets their ‘news’ from the celebrity section of the newspaper.

Had there been no dirt, there would have been absolutely no story. It’s as simple as that. People are confusing the fact that they can easily justify the story and action taken, because something bad was found, with it being justifiable in general.

Now keeping in mind we have some of the most polarised media in history (around the world), with populations in most countries mirroring that, and start thinking about how that is being applied in general. It becomes very easy to character assassinate or silence someone, when you can ensure they’ll be receiving death threats and harassment, because you’re part of the system that has created a population that thinks that way.

The dick-pic example is a good one, even if you totally failed to actually demonstrate why in a meaningful way. The equivalent is a anonymous dick-pic being connected back to it’s owner for an ulterior motive, like the media organisation disagreeing with something they have said or stand for. Then the media organisation outing that person on what is basically a global level, for sharing that kind of content. That’s going to effect many people in their life and employability, especially depending where they live. Or as we’ve seen here, the media organisation running, as news, that they discovered the owner, and they aren’t identifying them, because they’ve actually magically renounced all their online activities after being found out, which just so happens to include specific activities the organisation didn’t approve of. Blackmail.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Kris Hodgson’s story.