I chose to shorten the title in the way that I did because I hoped it would help focus the discussion on the civil liberties and surveillance aspects rather than on the specifics of Smollet's case. Happily, based on the comments so far, this seems to have worked.
I also worried that if I used his name, it would be flagged as off-topic before any useful discussion could happen. Does this explanation this match your assumption? One of the odd things about "we all know" is that often enough, we don't all know, or even agree.
I would have preferred "Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of Juissie Smollett's data". It would be more informative, but it'd further damage the liberal narrative that Jussie was "attacked by the right" and "Trump supporters are racist". If you were to run a poll, I bet a non-trivial percentage of people still believes Jussie was attacked - people do not read retractions, and once the truth came out, this was swept under the rug within a week.
And you're right, if you did mention his name it's likely that your submission would be flagged and dismissed out of hand, just like this comment will be. So you chose to self-censor instead.
Why would it damage the liberal narrative? Wouldn't it add sympathy to him (given that most of the comments here are against the idea of Google getting access to his data)
I really think you are overestimating how many people have heard if this guy (who seems pretty dodgy) and are looking for reasons to be offended here.
Seriously? You are stalking me now? In which world is that good behaviour and why do you think it's relevant?
I hadn't mentioned arson because it's stupid. If you go stalk my HN comments you'll find I talk about it there and ironically I did write something about arson, around about the time you wrote this: https://mobile.twitter.com/nlothian/status/12151167074522439... - the short version is that every year roughly 50% of the bushfires in Australia are deliberately lit or suspicious, and there is nothing to indicate this year is any different.
And seriously? Are you really trying to somehow tie Australian bushfires to some wacky case in the US? What is wrong with you?
To make it clear: assuming the impression I get from this report then I think this actor guy should go to prison for false reports. That still doesn't mean I'd ever heard of him before.
I also worried that if I used his name, it would be flagged as off-topic before any useful discussion could happen. Does this explanation this match your assumption? One of the odd things about "we all know" is that often enough, we don't all know, or even agree.