Citation needed. I saw no such declaration on reddit -- just that he seemed to be one of the dozens of somewhat interesting people worth looking at a little more closely.
It was the mass media that took this and turned it into "OMG REDDIT SAYS THEY FOUND THE BOMBER!"
This widely circulated spreadsheet [3] contains a "suspect summary", not a list of "somewhat interesting people".
1: http://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1cf5wp/2013_boston_m...
2: http://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1cf5wp/2013_boston_m...
3: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AgtCl8YvqiBodEl0...
The spreadsheet has 10+ people on it. You'd have to be willfully misinterpreting it to an absurd degree to conclude that reddit thought they all were simultaneously guilty.
Either you got there late or weren't paying attention. There are no shortage of people in this thread and the one I linked who witnessed that thread getting out of hand.
>The spreadsheet has 10+ people on it. You'd have to be willfully misinterpreting it to an absurd degree to conclude that reddit thought they all were simultaneously guilty.
I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make here.
I guess I am proof. And so is 'jaredsohn (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5562975 -- "Closer up view of person in OP (includes shot of face): http://i.imgur.com/BBxplgk.jpg " -- it was his interpretation from Reddit comments that Salah was one possible suspect).
There's a lot of truth to 'untog's comment up above that no matter the nuance and diligence being practiced, Reddit is still an open and public forum and no amount of nuance is worth anything when stuff leaks out of Reddit.
It's a huuuuuuge backpedal to go all the way from "reddit thought this guy was the bomber" to "one person on HN saw a reddit comment and it made him think that the guy was one possible suspect".
> no amount of nuance is worth anything when stuff leaks out of Reddit
Sure, but then the blame needs to be placed at the feet of the person who misrepresents the reddit post -- not on reddit itself.
Speaking of which, misrepresenting reddit is exactly what your comment at the top of this thread is doing. You should edit it.
I've (reluctantly) edited the comment.
You're absolutely right about vigilante justice, but there's a big difference between that (i.e., playing judge, jury, and executioner) and public evidence-review assistance (i.e., playing forensic investigator).