FUCK REDDIT

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jagos

So let's get this straight... The US government 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.

Originally Posted by Jagos

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.

Originally Posted by Jagos

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.

Originally Posted by Jagos

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]

Originally Posted by Jagos

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. 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.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Originally Posted by pocheros

Also, the guy lost his job, so that's good.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.