When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
9 Comments
Most Voted
NewestOldest
Napier Local
2 months ago
It’s a relief to finally see public recognition of smear Slater’s exploitative methods being acknowledged. It’s been obvious for years tthat his reliance on provocation and spectacle was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from the truth and intimidate others. The fact that this approach has now been consistently deemed unlawful in courtrooms is a significant vindication for those who have been subjected to his harassment btw. It’s more important because this examines the systemic problems that enabled his influence in the first place. If we are genuinely seeking to create a more accountable media landscape in New Zealand, we need to have a more nuanced discussion about said right wing twat influence networking.
The fact that Slater has also been able to rebrand and move platforms while maintaining the same underlying dynamic suggests there is an issue with our regulatory frameworks.
The article explains how he adapted his approach over time. This suggests that he’s also been able to effectively exploit loopholes and weaknesses in the existing system – perhaps even the ones that are in place to protect free speech – to continue his harmful activities.
I think you make a fair point that our regulatory frameworks need a shake-up, but do you think that’s the full story? Shouldn’t we also take a closer look at the role of politicians and their willingness to engage with Slater?
Finn Lee
7 months ago
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the extent of Cams willingness to disregard the consequences of his actions and the fact that he was able to generate such a huge following through provocation and spectacle is a testament to the power of social media, but it’s also concerning how easy it is to manipulate public opinion. The question I’m left with is, did Slater ever genuinely believe in the causes he was championing, or was it all just a clever ruse to stir up controversy and attention? The financial record of accountability that has accumulated against him allowing hate speech and defamation to spread unchecked.
StreetLevel
5 months ago
It seems Sam’s argument that Slater’s playbook failed to adapt once the legal framework came into play is compelling, but I am not entirely convinced that the issue is as simple as Slater moving platforms and rebranding. Does this not suggest a form of accountability and consequence which may be missing from the original Whale Oil playbook?
Aroha Young
4 months ago
Reliance on provocation and spectacle is just as effective today, but it’s a tactic that’s becoming increasingly exposed by the courts. These repeated findings of defamation and malicious publication, along with the substantial damages awarded, make it hard to see Slater’s actions as anything but a deliberate campaign of reputational harm.
Ivy
6 months ago
The Whale Oil days were all about stirring up drama and getting clicks but it looks like that noise is finally getting caught up in the real stuff.
Quinn K.
7 months ago
I reckon this article says it all about the Slater playbook. His whole schtick was built on causing a ruckus, making noise and hoping people would take it as fact. But the courts have shown him that’s just not how it works. The judgments against him are pretty damning and the financial records are true to their word in recounts. Can’t help but think he’s still trying the old tricks now, but they just don’t have the same sway as they used to. Would be good to see Slater hold some accountability for his actions rather than just shifting the blame or trying to wriggle out of his responsibility. Guess we’ll have to wait and see if that’s gonna happen.
CoastWatch_6
1 month ago
This is a much-needed exposé into the guys past and its lasting impact. The court records speak for themselves – his actions had real victims and have now been thoroughly judged by the law.
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Advertisement
This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
Advertisement
Why this ad?
Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉
🔙 Back
🔄 Reload
🌐 Translate
🧭 Open in New Tab
ThisQuality Footer – CNN Style
Weekly Newsletter
Get a curation of our most engaging stories in your inbox every week on Friday.
It’s a relief to finally see public recognition of smear Slater’s exploitative methods being acknowledged. It’s been obvious for years tthat his reliance on provocation and spectacle was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from the truth and intimidate others. The fact that this approach has now been consistently deemed unlawful in courtrooms is a significant vindication for those who have been subjected to his harassment btw. It’s more important because this examines the systemic problems that enabled his influence in the first place. If we are genuinely seeking to create a more accountable media landscape in New Zealand, we need to have a more nuanced discussion about said right wing twat influence networking.
The fact that Slater has also been able to rebrand and move platforms while maintaining the same underlying dynamic suggests there is an issue with our regulatory frameworks.
The article explains how he adapted his approach over time. This suggests that he’s also been able to effectively exploit loopholes and weaknesses in the existing system – perhaps even the ones that are in place to protect free speech – to continue his harmful activities.
I think you make a fair point that our regulatory frameworks need a shake-up, but do you think that’s the full story? Shouldn’t we also take a closer look at the role of politicians and their willingness to engage with Slater?
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the extent of Cams willingness to disregard the consequences of his actions and the fact that he was able to generate such a huge following through provocation and spectacle is a testament to the power of social media, but it’s also concerning how easy it is to manipulate public opinion. The question I’m left with is, did Slater ever genuinely believe in the causes he was championing, or was it all just a clever ruse to stir up controversy and attention? The financial record of accountability that has accumulated against him allowing hate speech and defamation to spread unchecked.
It seems Sam’s argument that Slater’s playbook failed to adapt once the legal framework came into play is compelling, but I am not entirely convinced that the issue is as simple as Slater moving platforms and rebranding. Does this not suggest a form of accountability and consequence which may be missing from the original Whale Oil playbook?
Reliance on provocation and spectacle is just as effective today, but it’s a tactic that’s becoming increasingly exposed by the courts. These repeated findings of defamation and malicious publication, along with the substantial damages awarded, make it hard to see Slater’s actions as anything but a deliberate campaign of reputational harm.
The Whale Oil days were all about stirring up drama and getting clicks but it looks like that noise is finally getting caught up in the real stuff.
I reckon this article says it all about the Slater playbook. His whole schtick was built on causing a ruckus, making noise and hoping people would take it as fact. But the courts have shown him that’s just not how it works. The judgments against him are pretty damning and the financial records are true to their word in recounts. Can’t help but think he’s still trying the old tricks now, but they just don’t have the same sway as they used to. Would be good to see Slater hold some accountability for his actions rather than just shifting the blame or trying to wriggle out of his responsibility. Guess we’ll have to wait and see if that’s gonna happen.
This is a much-needed exposé into the guys past and its lasting impact. The court records speak for themselves – his actions had real victims and have now been thoroughly judged by the law.