FUCK REDDIT

[Kim]

So, after enabling pedophiles, rapists, violent abusers, and hate communities, Reddit is throwing a tantrum over the fact that an enabler of pedophilia has been outed by Gawker.

You can read the source article here (http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web). I'm not going to quote it in full, because it's long as hell, but basically it is a big long thing about who the person is and the Reddit community in general.

Here's a choice quote, however.

Under Reddit logic, outing Violentacrez is worse than anonymously posting creepshots of innocent women, because doing so would undermine Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post creepshots of innocent women.

So yeah, fuck Reddit.

[Magus]

Hmm, I hate Gawker Media, too, though...this guy certainly seems like a grade-A freak, though.

I actually know little of Reddit--is it basically 4chan/b but with a falsely sophisticated air about it, what with their interviewing presidents and celebrities?

[Kim]

Reddit is a site like 4chan in some respects, mostly with a different layout. It's owned by Condé Nast Publications, which produces GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, and other magazines. They pride themselves on "Free Speech", which was their excuse for allowing sub-reddits to exist entirely around pedophilia, racism, rape, abuse, etc, but it's a very special sort of free speech that goes only one way. That free speech where they think they should be allowed to get away with whatever they want, but to use your free speech in the same way is equivalent to a sin of the highest order. The people in charge of the site allow these things to continue and benefit from their continuing, and the people who support and defend Reddit support the people who do this, even unintentionally. As much as I hate Gawker and as right as it is to hate Gawker, Reddit is simply levels beyond levels worse.

[McTahr]

Under Reddit logic, outing Violentacrez is worse than anonymously posting creepshots of innocent women, because doing so would undermine Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post creepshots of innocent women.

I am OK with that.

Me too. Free speech all you want, in no way is all the creeper/hate/pedo shit in any way defensible.

[pochercoaster]

I can't get through that whole article because it's too upsetting... These people make me nauseous.

Subreddits of snapshots of underage girls? What the fuck? Why haven't the police been involved yet?

There are no words...

[Loyal]

I've been following these shenanigans since it broke out, but I didn't want to bring it to NPF because it's a huge shitshow that remains ongoing.

I won't say much on the situation itself because every account I've seen given on the subject is delivered with a remarkable bias in support of itself (or is from Gawker), and it's difficult to discern exactly where the truth lies, but I will say Fuck Reddit nonetheless - for a different reason.

Fuck Reddit, for only dealing with problematic subreddits when they are financially or legally compelled to do so, and Fuck Reddit for letting the whole thing get this far in the first place.

[pochercoaster]

This guy is really sick. It's obvious from his interview that he knew he was doing something wrong and was uncomfortable with it. In other words he only cares about his actions inasmuch as he suffers consequences, not because he hurts others.

Inasmuch as "troll" is not exactly a nice title, I think it's an overused term that tends to lighten the extent of bullying and violence-supporting behaviour certain people exhibit online. This guy is a pedophilic, rape apologist, racist, abusive, misogynistic shitbag.

[Satan's Onion]

Ah, good, they actually outed him! When I first heard about this yesterday, it was just that VA had deleted fucking everything under threat of outing. Nice to hear they released his information anyway so everyone can take proper action.

edit: Also, much as I enjoy all the sweet, sweet hypocrite reddit tears about Ar Free Speaches, it will never fail to piss me off that it took this fucking long to do anything about one of the worst people in one of the worst corners of the Internet. Fucksakes, 4chan polices itself better than reddit does.

[shiney]

Yeah. I dunno if he'd have been outed to that degree if they didn't block all Gawker links. But, they decided to go balls-in to defend this guy, so there goes a lot of goodwill and reputation for the non-horrifying parts of Reddit.

[rpgdemon]

Yeah, I kind of really dislike Reddit. It's a bunch of people acting pseudo-intellectual, who (By merit of the upvote/downvote system maybe?) really become and act as a hive-mind, and it really feels like the entire group has no idea what it even means to be comfortable and confident in one's self, and has to put on this show of, "LOOK AT HOW FREE WE ALL ARE TO BE FREE TO FREE DO FREE STUFF BECAUSE FREE!", because they honestly have no idea otherwise how they can be comfortable being themselves, unless it becomes alright to be ENTIRELY open about really creepy things that really shouldn't be open. And if you're NOT supportive of that, well, what an asshole, because you're really imposing on my freedoms of yadda yadda.

The best description of the opinions that are widely upvoted on Reddit (From what I've seen! I honestly avoid the place as much as possible!) is that they make perfect sense, IF you have no compassion or empathy for your fellow man. They make these arguments that argue on ideological grounds, that seem to make sense if you take them on their face, but COMPLETELY fall apart when you realize what they're saying about all these other people who are just perfectly normal people. They're incredibly hurtful things in many cases (I remember that there was a big trend in this "Good Girl G-NAME-THAT-DOESN'T-MATTER", which was originally just good guy Greg, I guess? But it just turned into people masking incredibly misogynistic comments as a "SO TRUE" meme. Like, I don't remember many of them, but it was stuff like, "Lets you pay for the meal on the first date. Puts out."), and calling it liberated thinking.

[Solid Snake]

Man whoever signed Obama up for that Reddit interview thing should pretty much feel like a fucking asshole for daring to have the President of the United States legitimize that cesspool.

[Loyal]

Man whoever signed Obama up for that Reddit interview thing should pretty much feel like a fucking asshole for daring to have the President of the United States legitimize that cesspool. Histrionics aside, not especially.

To quote TotalBiscuit: [Reddit's a shithole, but] it's a useful shithole. Disregarding its faults, Reddit has an enormous userbase, and one that already tends to lean rather liberal to begin with, thereby providing a receptive audience for a bit of Q&A that even today has people talking about it. Ignoring the Reddit demographic (insofar as such a word could be applied - hivemind mentality aside there are a lot of viewpoints present) would be a mistake.

Regardless of your stance on the subject of Reddit as a whole, whoever brought up the idea of Obama doing an AMA likely got/deserved a raise.

[Solid Snake]

To say I vehemently disagree with TotalBiscuit -- whoever he is -- would be something of an understatement.

No matter how large or how useful or how 'liberal-leaning' a base of individuals Reddit caters to, they are privileged, egotistical, bigoted, abusive assholes -- not to mention passive enablers of criminals and sociopaths.

If you have integrity, you don't legitimize those people no matter how strategically beneficial it may seem.

[Satan's Onion]

Man whoever signed Obama up for that Reddit interview thing should pretty much feel like a fucking asshole for daring to have the President of the United States legitimize that cesspool.

I could just about see them genuinely not knowing, or assuming that it had been cracked down on after Anderson Cooper got on reddit's collective ass about it. A lot of reddit is pretty innocuous, like r/stormfront (http://www.reddit.com/r/stormfront) (no seriously, you can click on that, it's genuinely okay) or this fan-made game based on an episode of Community (http://www.reddit.com/r/hawkthorne/).

The problem is partly structural: reddit is set up so that it's hilariously easy to make your own insular little community, and the moderation is so openly apathetic about cracking down on horrible shit that creepiness is allowed to fester and thrive in these seedy little corners of the place, while most people would have no idea. After all, it's not happening in their subreddits.

However, as far as I can tell, one of reddit's absolute biggest problems is cultural. On the whole, reddit has a conception of free speech that comes from a place of pretty much all of the societal privilege--for them, "free speech" basically means "speech without consequences (for them)" because that's the only kind they've ever really experienced. And in reddit, those sublimely oblivious assholes have created a series of gargantuan echo chambers to reinforce all their worst qualities--which, shock of shocks, includes terrifyingly predatory creepiness and bitter misogyny. And when it's brought to their attention that they are being creepy and predatory and generally horrible--well, you get exactly what we've been seeing here for the last few days.

[Loyal]

No matter how large or how useful or how 'liberal-leaning' a base of individuals Reddit caters to, they are privileged, egotistical, bigoted, abusive assholes -- not to mention passive enablers of criminals and sociopaths.And they are voters, worth exactly as much (electoral college aside) as any one of the privileged, egotistical, bigoted, abusive assholes fanatically attached to the Republican party. Can't forget that.

[Solid Snake]

And they are voters, worth exactly as much (electoral college aside) as any one of the privileged, egotistical, bigoted, abusive assholes fanatically attached to the Republican party. Can't forget that.

One can understand the logical reasoning behind a certain decision and still choose not to condone it. Logical behavior can be ethically impermissible.

[stefan]

I actually know little of Reddit--is it basically 4chan/b but with a falsely sophisticated air about it, what with their interviewing presidents and celebrities?

Reddit is basically what happens when someone takes the concept of 4chan and removes anything remotely redeeming about it.

Let that sink in for a few moments.


Reddit has an enormous userbase, and one that already tends to lean rather randian to begin with,

fixed that for you. The absence of mainline conservative ideals does not equal liberal leaning, Reddit falls firmly into the smug, short-sighted "fuck you got mine" Internet Libertarian camp.

[Ryong]

Reddit is basically what happens when someone takes the concept of 4chan and removes anything remotely redeeming about it.

Let that sink in for a few moments.

I'd like to add in the giant ego issues people in there tend to have due to "the frontpage of the internet" with what you said added in.

[Premmy]

They would say he was a child pornographer, when all he had done was spearhead the distribution of thousands of legal photos of underage girls. They would say the fact that he created a subreddit dedicated to Hitler meant he was anti-Semitic, when really it was just trolling. (Brutsch says he's got Jewish blood himself: "If you see a picture of me, I'm about as Jewish looking as they get.")
This is funny to me because it's basicaly a troll saying:"But, what if my trolling is successful? THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE!"

[Loyal]

One can understand the logical reasoning behind a certain decision and still choose not to condone it. Logical behavior can be ethically impermissible.

And when integrity produces results (on a regular basis or - in politics - at all) I'm sure it'll be the thing to do. Until then,
If you have integrity, you don't legitimize those people no matter how strategically beneficial it may seem. I think we can do without citing fairytale as rhetoric. Not that I disagree it'd be NICE, mind you, but let's assume for the purposes of the discussion that people in these kinds of positions tend to prioritize satisfaction with the end over satisfaction with the means, and probably got there in the first place by assuming this philosophy.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

'liberal-leaning' - they are privileged, egotistical, bigoted, abusive assholes -- not to mention passive enablers of criminals and sociopaths.



Who saw that one coming!!!

[Jagos]

So let me get this straight...

I'm supposed to believe Gawker, an online tabloid that can't protect its own moles, against a community that has millions of members for various different subreddits that allow plenty of people to discuss topics anonymously?

I mean, seriously?

So we should allow a journalist to just stalk someone to find evidence against a person for jailbait photos?

Then he just totally misreads what Reddit does to come to his own conclusions about the site:

When it comes to mods, the political model of Reddit is not so much a vast digital democracy, as it's often framed by fans and users, as online feudalism. Moderators like Violentacrez are given absolute control over their turf in exchange for keeping the kingdom of Reddit strong. Moderators become more or less powerful in direct relation to the number and popularity of the subreddits they moderate, so they try to take over other subreddits to boost their profile in the community. Inevitably, Reddit's administrators develop relationships with the most influential moderators. Like feuding medieval lords vying for the king's favor, moderators form alliances or wage epic flame wars over power struggles.

Maybe that happens in the underbelly, but for God's sake that actually happens in usenets, 4chan, Diggit, or any other site where people can have a fetish for anything under the sun.

No, I'm not here defending pedophilia at all. I just didn't see the point that a journalist has to go to such an extent to ruin a person's life and make such mess for anonymity online.

And now, because the guy likes trolling, he got fired from his job over this. Congratulations, Chen for setting back journalistic integrity from the last 50 years. Now I'm not entirely a fan of him being able to put out feelrs and find the information but it's certainly impressive to see what he did to get the information.

That said, violentacrez was a troll for the most part. Reddit really doesn't have much to do with this in controlling every last subreddit on their site. Seeing them ban Gawker is dumb but hey, they have to learn that their actions do have consequences, same as the moderator getting fired.

I think the situation is much more complex than just saying "Oh fuck Reddit for defending a pedophile". I just can't square away that a lot of the time spent on this story could have been used to report a number of other things instead.

[shiney]

It's not like his subreddit was one of the most insanely popular ones there, distributing these unauthorized sexualized pictures of underage people to creepers worldwide.

There's always more important stuff to be reported on but the world needs ditch-diggers too, and this is something that actually kind of serves the public interest. Taking a picture and posting it on facebook shouldn't result in some sickening aggregator posting the image for weirdos to use as masturbation material.

[Kim]

No, I'm not here defending pedophilia at all. I just didn't see the point that a journalist has to go to such an extent to ruin a person's life and make such mess for anonymity online.

The person whose life was ruined was ruined because they went out of their way to antagonize people by being racist, misogynist, and generally awful. They were also a pedophile that founded and tended a community for pedophiles to share pictures of minors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT because they found them sexually arousing.

The reporter did not ruin this person's life. He ruined his own life by doing the things he's suffering the consequences for now. You are literally arguing that this man who did these awful things should be free from the consequences of his actions.

No, he should not be free from those consequences. You may claim you're not defending pedophilia, but you're certainly defending a pedophile, a racist, and a misogynist, and you're also defending the community that gave him authority which he used in morally bankrupt ways.

Perhaps this is a thing you should not do.

It's not like his subreddit was one of the most insanely popular ones there, distributing these unauthorized sexualized pictures of underage people to creepers worldwide.

What's important to keep in mind is that he had close connections with many of the people in charge of Reddit and who manage many other sub-reddits. He's not some self-contained creep. He was a creep with power and connections given to him by a community and those who manage that community.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What exactly is wrong with journalists stalking people? Like this is a big issue in Britain at the moment with the Levenson Inquiry and such like but I want journalists stalking people, I want them hacking into shit- I want them finding out stuff other people don't want them to know. That is like exactly what they should be doing.
Like the other alternatives are A) Blandly recycling press releases or B) Just making shit up.
And this is even one of the worst examples you could use of journalists gone wild. In like the Leveson inquiry we had journalists hacking into celebrity phones to find out who they are dating and shit which you could argue is a bit ridic, here they are exposing a pedophile- that seems like a pretty solid use of their dark journalistic powers

[Nique]

Journalistic integrity is not the only princeple involved here, however.

Perhaps it is more important that the type of overtly mysoginostic behavior on display at Reddit be publically shamed. I guess I don't really know who has the objective ethical high ground here, but I can't feel too bad about a dude who enables or actively participates in posting creeper photos being outed.

[Premmy]

When did internet anonymity become a right that can be infringed upon and must be upheld by society, as opposed to a priveligethat must be personally worked to maintain by those who personally want it for themselves? I'm not seeing how "threatening internet anonymity" is supposed to be such a big deal in this instance. Dude showed up to public meetups and claimed his identity,and told people his real name and even got his entire family in on it. This reporter pretty much engaged in some old-fashioned early twentieth century journalisms. They did'nt hack any computers or steal any property or break into anyone's home or anything illegal or immoral as far as I can tell. You can't barely do anything to keep a secret, then cry when it gets out.

[Magus]

Yeah, I'd say the only difference is that unlike with real celebrities, violentacrez is a minor pseudo-internet celebrity. In any case there was no actual illegality involved in their investigation of him, though I did kind of laugh when they said they weren't outing him as a form of punishment (I don't really see it as anything else--just that it is a deserved punishment), or just to get page-hits (probably their main goal--or rather, Gawker's main goal). Maybe the journalist personally felt they are accomplishing something regarding making the internet safer/less shitty, though given the motivation of the average Gawker writer...probably the page hits. I bet they got a crap ton of page hits out of outing the most notorious Redditor.

But in any case I can't really see anything wrong with it, other than that the average internet user doesn't expect their real identity to be unearthed by some writer, but if someone wants to put the time into it, they certainly can do it for many people, probably.

[Jagos]

The person whose life was ruined was ruined because they went out of their way to antagonize people by being racist, misogynist, and generally awful. They were also a pedophile that founded and tended a community for pedophiles to share pictures of minors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT because they found them sexually arousing.

So let's get this straight... The US government (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/03/manga-is-not-a-crime/) goes after people for having teenage images but not harming girls. These people are sharing photos.

The same ones that are found on other sites of commerce (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml) which seems to be more an attack on privacy and linking. But there's little evidence other than sensationalism that someone was harmed on these smaller Reddits. I don't know about these Reddits, but I do tend to hang out in r/politics, r/technology, and a few other reddits for news on government and privacy issues.

The reporter did not ruin this person's life. He ruined his own life by doing the things he's suffering the consequences for now. You are literally arguing that this man who did these awful things should be free from the consequences of his actions.

No, I'm not. I said "I think the situation is much more complex than just saying 'Oh fuck Reddit for defending a pedophile'." as a way to summarize my feelings on the topic. Further, blaming all of Reddit for the actions of violentacrez is really blinding. The consequences here is that he's lost his job over giving out his information online which we criticize the government for doing with Operation Stellar Wind (http://www.classwarfareexists.com/n-s-a-whistleblower-exposes-top-secret-domestic-spying-program-operation-stellar-wind/). No, I'm not comfortable with giving all of my information online. But seeing this done by Chen doesn't make me feel any better about having information used to pry in someone's life.

No, he should not be free from those consequences. You may claim you're not defending pedophilia, but you're certainly defending a pedophile, a racist, and a misogynist, and you're also defending the community that gave him authority which he used in morally bankrupt ways.

You may claim you're being neutral but you're most certainly creating a strawman argument which isn't what I'm saying at all.

Do I like what he did? In no way. It's not something I would do myself. I just don't think two wrongs make a right. Did the guy make the photos? From the evidence, he didn't. He just posted them from other sources. He may have a sick fetish and that's wrong ethically, but if all it is being traded is pictures, then I for one, don't care and wouldn't have known diddly about this. If he was kidnapping and photographing, then take that fucker down, pronto.

The point here is the way that Adrian Chen got his information and used that to take away violentacrez' "power" rubs me the wrong way the same as me trying to find information on a random individual and use it against them to report a story.



What's important to keep in mind is that he had close connections with many of the people in charge of Reddit and who manage many other sub-reddits. He's not some self-contained creep. He was a creep with power and connections given to him by a community and those who manage that community.

Reddit is a huge place and I think you're focusing too much on what Adrian is saying. Who are the people in charge here? Alexis O'hainan? The guy who created it? Or do you just feel that he's made the mods to be all powerful beings of various subreddits are somehow the same caretakers of the site? I don't think this is accurate reporting in all shapes and forms and he's vastly overstated the power of mods to make VA seem to be more of a villain than he truly is.

What I see here is a slippery slope argument. Think about if VA were a political dissenter instead of an Asshole Victim. If he were trying to speak out about the FDA poisoning drinking water and wanted to remain anonymous. Would that make it right?

How about if you have scientists saying that global warming isn't a hoax?

Or a coal miner saying how he's forced to attend a "voluntary" event as the boss told him to do?

The point here is that if the circumstances were different, we might be on different sides of the argument.

No one has to condone VA's actions in order to see the other consequences that could arise from similar situations in the future.

[Premmy]

Jagos you have to be the only person I've ever seen to actually say they're using the slippery slope fallacy while doing so.

[Jagos]

How so? I'm pointing out why the outing of a troll is uncomfortable to me and why I think his actions aren't something I condone.

[shiney]

You're something else Jagos.

I'm going to ask that anyone who responds to this keeps a civil tone, because even I am having some trouble. This is mind-boggling, Jagos. This guy is a legitimate and perfect example of a creeper hiding behind internet anonymity, and you're butthurt because he learned the consequences the hard way. If someone were gluing these photographs to the walls in NYC subways and got busted I imagine you'd be there decrying government intrusion? And would defend the owners and operators of the subway system, as this was happening with their knowledge and consent, and they knew exactly who was doing it every step of the way and were contacted repeatedly about this and not just did nothing but actually took steps to warn the person. And THAT'S OK but him getting outed isn't?

'Cause it's totes legal and not at all something that should be discouraged??

[pochercoaster]

How so? I'm pointing out why the outing of a troll is uncomfortable to me and why I think his actions aren't something I condone.

I'm glad protecting the self-admitted identity of a self-admitted pedophile is more important than protecting the safety of young women and girls.

I'm glad that we're more uncomfortable with abusers suffering consequences for their actions than protecting their victims.

I'm glad that people like you, who condone and perpetuate systems of oppression and rape culture exist, while 1 in 4 women are rape victims.

I'm glad that there are people who live in bubbles where they never have to suffer from violence because of their gender or race.

I'm glad that we can call this man a troll over and over, as if being a troll changes his abusive behaviour one iota.

Yes, I'm real glad that this discussion is alive and well today, in 2012.

Please sign me up for all the privileges you have. It must be nice never having to fear for your safety. It must be nice knowing that if you ever suffer from violence it won't be because you're a woman. It must be nice knowing that if you ever suffer from violence you will be taken seriously, and there won't be a legion of people defending the actions of the person who assaulted you.

There is no part of your statement that isn't contradictory. You just stated that you are uncomfortable with people publishing the identity of a pedophile. How can you say you don't condone his actions and then criticize people for responding to them? If you don't condone his actions what do you suggest we do- ignore him and wring our hands a lot? Let him go out and victimize more people?

You know why people have to take actions like this? Because no one else gives enough of a shit about victims to help them. The police don't give a fuck. So it's up to the victims to take actions to protect themselves, when no one else will. When people have a problem with victims taking actions to protect themselves all I can think of is ABUSE APOLOGIST. All it indicates, to me, is that the people defending this man are really, really uncomfortable with the idea that they will have slightly less power than they did before. Because suddenly someone experienced consequences, and some people aren't used to experiencing consequences for their actions.

And for god sakes all they did was publish his identity, which he didn't even try to hide.

[Amake]

Yeah I really don't see the connection between someone who wants to anonymously share depraved porn and someone who might need anonymity to divulge important information without putting themselves at risk. I'd rather compare this guy to someone who has AIDS and doesn't want people he has sex with to know about it so he's putting a paper bag over his head to hide the sores. And Reddit is the overly enthusiastic paper bag-supplying, no questions-asking brothel who tells you you're insane to deny these fine people the privacy they require to share their disease with you without being judged.

[Satan's Onion]

So let's get this straight... The US government (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/03/manga-is-not-a-crime/) goes after people for having teenage images but not harming girls. These people are sharing photos.

...of children and young adults who'd been sexually exploited, or whose private photo accounts had been hacked and the contents shared for very, very sick people to jack it to, reinforcing their sickness and making it easier for them to victimize someone else. In no way is this a simple matter of "just sharing some photos". Hell, this wasn't in some shady little corner of the deepweb--this was on the self-styled "front page of the internet", for fuck's sake. Violentacrez knowingly, happily created and maintained safe havens for child molesters and sexual predators on one of the internet's biggest social platforms.

Do I like what he did? In no way. It's not something I would do myself. I just don't think two wrongs make a right. Did the guy make the photos? From the evidence, he didn't. He just posted them from other sources. He may have a sick fetish and that's wrong ethically, but if all it is being traded is pictures, then I for one, don't care and wouldn't have known diddly about this. If he was kidnapping and photographing, then take that fucker down, pronto.

I.

What.

Please tell me that I have somehow grossly misread this. Otherwise I'm going to have to assume that you're seriously arguing that making a gigantic safe space for child molesters to swap porn pics of children and reinforce each other's delusions that it's actually A-OK because, well, he wasn't making any new kiddy porn, just making it really easy to access the stuff that's already there. Is it more okay because he was only a kiddy-fiddler enabler--a kiddy-fiddler middle man, as it were?

I ask you this seriously, and please consider it carefully: Do you think that the right of the children in those pictures to not be easily, trivially further victimized--on the Front Page Of The Internet, no less--is less important, or more important than Violentacrez' right to inalienable freeze peaches in trading pictures of those victims?

Or let me put it like this: I expect you've heard of free speech not covering someone who falsely shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That's because doing so puts a hell of a lot of other people at risk of trauma, injury and death. Do you not think that acting as a kiddy porn kingpin puts children at risk in much the same way? Because this shit doesn't make predators less likely to predate on children, Jagos. It makes them think that being a predator is okay, especially when they're part of a thriving and very public porn-swapping community of like-minded fellows.

Quite frankly, Jagos, your idea of free speech sounds less like actual free speech--in which other people have the right to tell you and everyone around that you're doing or saying something reprehensible--and more like speech free of consequences. violentacrez used his speech to victimize kids and help others victimize kids. Adrian Chen used his to expose his horrible behavior to the whole world. I'm not seeing the problem with this, to be quite honest.

The point here is the way that Adrian Chen got his information and used that to take away violentacrez' "power" rubs me the wrong way the same as me trying to find information on a random individual and use it against them to report a story.

Adrian Chen literally used information that VA put out there himself, in public, while he was having a great deal of fun doing something absolutely abhorrent. He didn't so much dig up information so much as touch his shovel lightly to the ground and find a gushing well of dox. Violentacrez dug his own hole with this; let him lie in it.

The point here is that if the circumstances were different, we might be on different sides of the argument.

Indeed. If violentacrez hadn't been a proud predator and predator facilitator, then he wouldn't have been the target of public outing and shaming. Also, if rain fell up then my head would stay dry.

[stefan]

No, I'm not. I said "I think the situation is much more complex than just saying 'Oh fuck Reddit for defending a pedophile'." as a way to summarize my feelings on the topic. Further, blaming all of Reddit for the actions of violentacrez is really blinding. The consequences here is that he's lost his job over giving out his information online which we criticize the government for doing with Operation Stellar Wind (http://www.classwarfareexists.com/n-s-a-whistleblower-exposes-top-secret-domestic-spying-program-operation-stellar-wind/). No, I'm not comfortable with giving all of my information online. But seeing this done by Chen doesn't make me feel any better about having information used to pry in someone's life.

you do realize that this is far from the first time Reddit has been called out for outright distributing child pornography, right? Not including such wonderful things as literally glorifying actual serial rapists, Reddit is on its umpteenth goddamn strike at this point and the admins do nothing to combat it.


Do I like what he did? In no way. It's not something I would do myself. I just don't think two wrongs make a right. Did the guy make the photos? From the evidence, he didn't. He just posted them from other sources.

"Other sources" including such things as "brute-forcing photobucket account passwords to get at the juicy private images," something that has demonstrably been done by several members of reddit including VA himself.

Reddit is a huge place and I think you're focusing too much on what Adrian is saying. Who are the people in charge here? Alexis O'hainan? The guy who created it? Or do you just feel that he's made the mods to be all powerful beings of various subreddits are somehow the same caretakers of the site? I don't think this is accurate reporting in all shapes and forms and he's vastly overstated the power of mods to make VA seem to be more of a villain than he truly is.

4chan is bigger than reddit, more unruly than reddit, and has a far more devious and wily userbase than reddit, and yet its team of mods still manage to nuke the shit out of people posting child porn or jailbait voyeurism more or less immediately.

Even discounting the fact that reddit's admins are on record as openly supporting the viler subreddits under the banner of "free speech," they have no excuse for letting them spiral out of control.

What I see here is a slippery slope argument. Think about if VA were a political dissenter instead of an Asshole Victim. If he were trying to speak out about the FDA poisoning drinking water and wanted to remain anonymous. Would that make it right?

False equivalency. Wanting to remain anonymous about whistleblowing and wanting to remain anonymous about fucking your stepdaughter and distributing nonconsentual voyeuristic imagery are not comparable in the slightest.


Reddit Delenda Est.

[pochercoaster]

Also, the guy lost his job, so that's good. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Also, the guy lost his job, so that's good. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html)

As much of a softy I am about folks losing work, I have to admit I'm glad to here this guy got what was coming to him.

[shiney]

Devil's Advocate: none of this qualified as the letter of the law definition of child porn. There was no nudity. Doesn't make much difference though.

[pochercoaster]

Devil's Advocate: none of this qualified as the letter of the law definition of child porn. There was no nudity. Doesn't make much difference though.

It makes zero difference. Except legally, but it's not like the law should be used as the basis for one's morality, nor does it protect people all that effectively- especially when it comes to women, children, and minorities.

[POS Industries]

So let's get this straight... The US government (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/03/manga-is-not-a-crime/) goes after people for having teenage images but not harming girls. These people are sharing photos.
There's a stark difference in degrees of reprehensibility and harm caused between distributing pictures of real minors for sexual gratification and having some Lucky Star hentai.

[Jagos]

You're something else Jagos.

I'm going to ask that anyone who responds to this keeps a civil tone, because even I am having some trouble. This is mind-boggling, Jagos. This guy is a legitimate and perfect example of a creeper hiding behind internet anonymity, and you're butthurt because he learned the consequences the hard way. If someone were gluing these photographs to the walls in NYC subways and got busted I imagine you'd be there decrying government intrusion? And would defend the owners and operators of the subway system, as this was happening with their knowledge and consent, and they knew exactly who was doing it every step of the way and were contacted repeatedly about this and not just did nothing but actually took steps to warn the person. And THAT'S OK but him getting outed isn't?

'Cause it's totes legal and not at all something that should be discouraged??

*sigh*

NO. Shiny.

First, the journalist found out because the guy actually went to people and basically stalked him. That's what I'm concerned with. Everyone's so far getting the connection of "pedophile" with "he deserves it" yet when we ask for the same info in other contexts, suddenly you aren't allowed anonymity at all.

The entire point here is how two wrongs DO NOT make a right.

In the contexts that you're describing, there are legal laws against that. The journalist would report the story, and done. Here, I just think that the journalist was kind of being a dick for outing this individual. Sure, Reddit brought even more attention to the the guy with their inappropriate ban on Gawker links. But no one's stopping that at all.

I find this the same as going after Craigslist (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml) for what its users are doing. Get the police involved to track who's doing what and take them down (http://vrritti.com/2012/06/09/investigators-have-busted-a-child-pornography-ring-spread-across-the-u-s-and-europe-that-produced-and-distributed-sexually-explicit-images-of-babies-and-toddlers-online/). The first context that I was responding to was Reddit being involved with this type of stuff. I have my doubts because I use Reddit for information gathering on politics and technology. But I'm just one of the millions of people that use Reddit on a daily basis. The fact is, these types(pedos and sickos) do use other sites and should be taken care of in other ways besides a public outing. I just don't think Chen should have done it because I feel he was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Maybe he's emotionally involved, maybe it's because that was his investigation, maybe he felt right about having that kind of power, iunno. It just seems like an ethical line was crossed in regards to journalistic integrity by being so involved with the story.

I'm glad protecting the self-admitted identity of a self-admitted pedophile is more important than protecting the safety of young women and girls.

I'm glad that we're more uncomfortable with abusers suffering consequences for their actions than protecting their victims.

I'm glad that people like you, who condone and perpetuate systems of oppression and rape culture exist, while 1 in 4 women are rape victims.

I'm glad that there are people who live in bubbles where they never have to suffer from violence because of their gender or race.

I'm glad that we can call this man a troll over and over, as if being a troll changes his abusive behaviour one iota.

Yes, I'm real glad that this discussion is alive and well today, in 2012.

Pocheros, let be very, very, VERY clear to you.

The first thing that people hear when "child porn" is brought up as a topic is usually an emotional plea. Then they project something that is NOT said at all. No, I haven't defended the guy here and I said I'm uncomfortable with how this information was used to publicly out him. Maybe naming and shaming works but it doesn't do a damn thing to change the behavior. Maybe in a year, he gets more internet, becomes more secretive, and becomes more depraved instead of seeking help. No, I don't agree that we should seek "eye for an eye" vengeance just because he traded photos or anything else. Maybe I feel that the first part of this equation is to find out what the hell is going on here on a variety of levels:

Are the women still in a position of submission or can we get them to psychiatric assistance for the damage of actual rape or torture?

Are we sure of all photos being ones of dark intentions or have we looked at the evidence stacked against the perpetrators?

Do we have public services to answer the issues of rape and oppression in most, if not all, circumstances? If not, how do we improve this issue?

And FFS, stop trying to say I condone this crap. That just tells me you don't want to read a word or you want to jump to a conclusion and make me out to be a bad guy for doing nothing other than disagreeing with Chen's decision to out the guy instead of finding ways to answer a myriad of questions about this. Also, it's not a bubble when something gives me an uneasy feeling about a very difficult situation that doesn't look good for anyone.

You know why people have to take actions like this? Because no one else gives enough of a shit about victims to help them. The police don't give a fuck. So it's up to the victims to take actions to protect themselves, when no one else will. When people have a problem with victims taking actions to protect themselves all I can think of is ABUSE APOLOGIST. All it indicates, to me, is that the people defending this man are really, really uncomfortable with the idea that they will have slightly less power than they did before. Because suddenly someone experienced consequences, and some people aren't used to experiencing consequences for their actions.

...

Last time to tell you. I'm not defending him.

Do you think that the right of the children in those pictures to not be easily, trivially further victimized--on the Front Page Of The Internet, no less--is less important, or more important than Violentacrez' right to inalienable freeze peaches in trading pictures of those victims?

It wasn't on the frontpage of the internet. At all.

So tell me, everyone, have you ALL seen the pictures for yourselves and seen what they're trading in? Because this is just as bad and the MPAA or the RIAA saying "child porn" to pass legislation. What I do know is that people lose their minds once someone says those magic words (http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/) and all civility goes out the window. And that's the problem. In not one argument have I seen anyone asking how do we fix the situation. Instead, I keep hearing how everyone wanted to see him punished even if it's something symbolic. That's not helping the situation at all.

Neither is trying to paint me as a defender of child porn just because the guy is a troll/pedo/baby killer/whatever. I just found it unsettling that Chen decided to out him.

It makes them think that being a predator is okay, especially when they're part of a thriving and very public porn-swapping community of like-minded fellows.

That's where I think you're wrong. What this does is force them to go further underground and possibly become more depraved and I think that's worse than having law enforcement track them and put them in jail or merely possessing photos while not having the time to actually commit crimes.

I KNOW this is a sensitive topic. And I'm trying my damndest to keep emotions out of it because of what this seems to indicate. The topics that I'm concerned about are quite a few that seem to get missed in the shuffle.

In regards to privacy, I do think you should have some online. I think Chen should have handled this a different way if VA actually did something against the law. I don't know what possessed him to go after VA but that's his choice.

In regards to the child porn issue, that's even harder. Some people believe that child porn should be legalized because it may give law enforcement the wrong incentives to convict people. Someone might actually be 15 and their SO is 18 and that's considered statutory rape. Hell, two 15 year olds can be charged with sexting for just sending each other naked photos. And it's not implausible to think that a 16 year old has an account and poses nude on the same sites that VA posted to.

So no (yet again) I'm not defending this guy or his actions. I'm mainly thinking about the nuances that this situation has brought up that are being missed and I doubt if there has been considerable discussion about those issues.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Devil's Advocate: none of this qualified as the letter of the law definition of child porn. There was no nudity. Doesn't make much difference though.

And gross financial misdeeds don't qualify technically as murder but that don't mean bankers don't murder nobody.

[shiney]

If he has to go further underground, then good. It makes it much harder for other creepers to find then, and associates him with the kind of scum that thinks this is an acceptable thing to do.

[Grimpond]

*sigh*

Jagos, let me be very, very, VERY clear with you.


When child porn is mentioned, It is not a fucking emotional plea. It brings to mind very mentally disturbing images of the fact that it's, you know....CHILD PORN! Now this man has not sought help, and has in fact gone out of his way to create a safe haven for himself and others like him.

The fact that the moderators KNEW HIM and what he did is terrible in every way, and the fact that you're crying out for what you wrongly believe to be a wrongdoing is just cementing the fact that you have a very warped view of things.

You have now led me to personally believe that, on several critical issues, you are a terrible human being.

[Amake]

So it's a question of just how much privacy you should be allowed online. I think that just like the real world it depends on how much you involve yourself with people around you. If you think that things you say contribute anything of value, you should generally not be afraid to sign your name to them.

What you don't get to do is say anything to anyone without consequences happening. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as speech that is free. You pay for everything you say, one way or another.

[POS Industries]

you are a terrible human being.
Hey now, you're totally right and all but you're not allowed to name call over it. That's my job.

The first thing that people hear when "child porn" is brought up as a topic is usually an emotional plea.
Jagos, the thing with statements like this and the whole meat and potatoes of your post where you constantly claim that you aren't defending the guy and then go on to defend him against the rightfully-earned consequences of his actions begins to blur the line between just being sincerely wrong and outright trolling. The whole "but this internet vigilantism might only drive him to become a more hardened, dangerous pedophile" concern trolling on top of it, regardless of whether you intend it or not, doesn't exactly come off that much better.

But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about just being hilarious wrong and unable to rationally convey your arguments to any tangible degree, which leads me to conclude that the news forum, for the time being, just isn't for you.

Three month news forum ban. Hopefully this will give you a chance to find a fresh perspective or something.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

To shift things to a different light, what concerns me, among the already discussed points, about all this is the attention reddit is getting might force the predditors to change up their tactics of distributing their ill gains. Encrypted steganography being one of a number of ways to potentially slip things through traaffic noise. If an upsurge of. Bmp or. Wav files started cropping up it'd def be noteworthy as those are two of the easiest types to hide stuff in, lotta slackspace and all.

Just a thought i didn't see any talk about.

[synkr0nized]

It wasn't on the frontpage of the internet. At all.


I'm sorry, I've gotta "lol" at someone who I assume does frequent reddit not getting SO's use of the glitter tag to mock their self-appointed nickname for their site.




e: So is this the same guy that SA was all over for child porn on reddit before (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466025&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)?

e2: Oh, shit, it is. What the Christ. I thought he was already dealt with and off the Internet.
Oh, I get it, the OP article is about who's the guy behind that handle. Well fucking with him is fine with me. He's a terrible human being.

[Loyal]

I didn't understand a fuckin' word you just said, Skweeb.

But if it's more difficult to find and access, it's probably less likely to gain much traffic. That said, shortly after the shutdown of /r/creepshots there were two or four more copycat subreddits, named things like "Creepyshots," which were promptly shut down. I doubt they're going for subtlety or an underground society of upskirts here.

e: Yes, Synk, one and the same. Dude had literally hundreds of porn subs under his belt besides the obvious-trolling subs.

[POS Industries]

I didn't understand a fuckin' word you just said, Skweeb.
He's saying this might just encourage them to undertake less open and obvious means of continuing their terrible things that they do.

What I don't understand about this argument is why making it so pedophiles have to go to more difficult and complicated means of sharing their creepy fap material is a bad thing? The whole point is that we shouldn't be allowing them to freely do it in the open without consequence.

[Loyal]

Also, have some food for thought. (http://www.reddit.com/r/pointandclick/comments/11dkn9/tea_break_escape/c6mvcyu) The account is an alt of VA and he's talking about the article and related issues.

[synkr0nized]

Yes, run to the people who are cool with your creepy to argue your innocence.


e: Oh thank Heavens there are some sane voices in that discussion.

[Marc v4.0]

I was asked to join as a moderator for one reason: to make sure that the things posted there remained both legal...

Completely legal https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/Emotes/emot-jerkbag.gif

[pochercoaster]

One does not have a "friendly chat" with a person whose life you're planning to destroy.

"Why am I being held accountable for my actions nooooooooo"

[shiney]

Well. This discussion got very strange, but I don't think there's a lot of life left in it. Everyone agrees about VA by this point, Jagos has received what he earned, we don't need to rub it in or anything. And from the outset this thread was destined to be a unanimous "Christ, what an asshole" thread, but as stated, got strange.

Plus, the asshole lost his job. If he was so worried about that, maybe he shouldn't have been jacking it to stolen pictures of underage kids.

Thread over and closed. If another modmin decides otherwise, feel free to reopen!