My opinion is that when you go and violate others' privacy, especially to the degree and scope this person did with /r/creepshots and similar, you have no right to complain when others violate yours. It's an interesting thing when posting voyeuristic pictures of women for everyone to see is considered acceptable by the involved userbase, but revealing the identity of someone doing this is considered unacceptable by them.
I don't think it is acceptable at all. But I support reddits policy of not allowing personal information to be posted. And I will never take you seriously again when it comes to being an advocate against bullying of LGBTs, as you so hypocritically and callously seem to not have a problem with bullying of other groups despite me pointing out that it may end up leading to a suicide some day.
Reddit has a policy that personal information is not allowed to be posted under any circumstances. I agree with this policy even if some people really are scumbags. I fully understand reddit's owners not wanting to allow their site to turn into a staging ground for lynchings. If someone posts a video of a bully then yeah that kid deserves to be punished... by the proper authorities. Not by the internet making his life and his families life a living hell.
Like most systems of justice, sometimes scumbags don't get what they deserve in the interest of protecting the innocent. I'm surprised that you would support the posting of personal information on the internet with the intent of bullying that person, given your personal knowledge of how bad bullying can be. Yeah someone may be a scumbag or a bully, but you don't think that situation could be reversed? I wouldn't think it is very far fetched to someday hear of a story of a bully eventually taking their own life after their bad behavior was exposed. And that would be a tragedy as well. The right thing to do is to let the school or the authorities sort it out.
Doesn't journalism do this (write news stories about people who are doing something sketchy but maybe not technically breaking the law) all the time? How is this different, except that it's done by Gawker and not CBS? After all, major news outlets have picked up the story from Gawker and run as much (if not more) personal information as Gawker has.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Doesn't journalism do this (write news stories about people who are doing something sketchy but maybe not technically breaking the law) all the time? How is this different, except that it's done by Gawker and not CBS? After all, major news outlets have picked up the story from Gawker and run as much (if not more) personal information as Gawker has.
Teia was specifically complaining that reddit banned Gawker because it was used to reveal personal information of a reddit user.
Teia was specifically complaining that reddit banned Gawker because it was used to reveal personal information of a reddit user.
I think that's a somewhat separate issue, though; I understand Reddit's policy, but since you too have said you oppose his personal information being released, I'm wondering how you think it differs from what a major news organization might do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What an idiot, especially for someone at that age when you need to be thinking of people as equals and acting in light of setting a good example for others online and offline. While offline is more important by far than online, there are times whenever being useful to someone such as spreading good information is productive.
This man and his ilk are a cancer. You want to support the growth of individuals to make a society stronger, not encourage ignorance and support degrading women. I have no issue with some woman posting a pornography site or whatever on her own above the age of 18, but "creeping" in vogue is disgusting especially for women who do not want their body parts flashed on internet. If a person wants porn there's certainly no end of it, especially with the internet there's connoisseurs and porn mavens willing to proselytize to the legal porn curious.
Overall, he probably should've invested more time into his love life at home, rather than patrolling the nets. A married setting that sort of example is perverted, equally illegal setting that for younger males.
There are ways to express sexuality and preferences, we all know that even Pompeii has an entire room off limits to people under 18 because it's a giant Roman porn room so it is all too human. But we set up limits and walls, even if that is sometimes as simple as a felt rope and social expectations. This, though, is unbecoming and degenerate of internet culture and stands to reason why social conservative whacko's patrol the internet looking for sites like this one and post garbage.
Honestly, I'd say Reddit is far worse than 4chan could ever be. It's just a matter of scope when you get right down to it. 4chan has a defined number of subforums with discrete topics. Reddit has as many subreddits as users are willing to create. You're not really going to get, say, 4chan subforums based on jailbait, abuse of women, and whatever other topics. At worst, there'll just be various threads about them, but they won't reach the same heights of popularity and toxicity /r/jailbait and so on enjoyed.
I've never entertained going to 4chan or reddit, and only know about it what others have written on the subject and expressed their opinions. What I do understand is that 4chan has a vigilante self policing culture and invented things such as pedobear and some more huntings that can be questionable in and of themselves, though. One in which was hunting some 13 year old girl, which in my mind is just as bad as reddit.
These things are sorting themselves out, and sadly it may take decades as your generation writes the internet laws and social norms. The rest of us are just catching up to you hipsters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Reddit is only weird if you really pursue the fringe communities, which for most of the userbase may as well not exist. Normal reddit subs are harmless memes and pictures 99% of the time.
Reddit is only weird if you really pursue the fringe communities, which for most of the userbase may as well not exist. Normal reddit subs are harmless memes and pictures 99% of the time.
This is pretty much spot-on.
But you know what, this could end up hilariously. And I mean it: any of us that absolutely enjoy drama and when lawyers are unleashed should consider this scenario.
You're a troll. You're pretty much notorious, and have pissed off everyone from Jesus Christ to the Muslim guy selling falafel on your street corner. No one really knows your name or who you are.
One day, you piss off some guy at Gawker. He decides, "I'm gonna' stick it to the troll and out him!" So you do all this stuff and come to find out that this guy - let's say that the name is Joe Montana - owns the ISP connection that the material is being posted from, according to reroutes and the like. You've ruled out proxy servers and the like.
Well, one day you decide to call him up. However, I pick up. You go, "Ha, Joe Montana! I know you're the infamous (insert troll name here)!" Now, being the actual troll, I play along. You tell me you're going to do a story. I play the part. I act all indignant, spout off the usual stuff of you not being able to print my identity without my express permission. But I play along, I admit to everything, including being this "Joe Montana" guy. I admit to everything. All the trolling, all the hurt feelings, I tell you I did it. I'm not lying: I am the troll.
You print the story. All those people now have the information you posted. What you didn't know is that I just happened to be really good friends with Joe and was housesitting for the weekend. Hence why I could answer the phone instead of him.
Now you have "outted" me. Joe's work, meanwhile, is being spammed with hatemail and prank calls. His house phone and cell are constantly ringing, and his e-mail is chock full of death threats. He's fired. He doesn't realize what's going on until one day, a month or two later, he is told about your post.
He calls Gawker, or e-mails. No one listens. Gawker is sure they have the right guy. Meanwhile, Reddit decides to ban Gawker from the site for "outing" the troll. Gawker takes this is further proof they were right, despite Reddit's stated rules that a ban for outing or disclosing personal information does not necessarilly mean you were right. It's sort of like Wikipedia's concept: outing a member and getting caught results in a ban, whether or not you are correct in the information you revealed.
Now Gawker is deep ****. The strongest piece of evidence they had? The ISP that the trolling was done through came from Joe Montana's modem/router. But the router wasn't protected. I was leeching off of him, and because of that you didn't know it was actually me.
Congratulations, Gawker. You are on the wrong end of a multi-million dolar lawsuit, to the point that you will probably never be taken seriously again. And what's more? You allowed me to troll to a far greater audience than I originally had. Thank you!
Do you think this is a joke? I'll look it up, but this exact same scenario happened back in...2002, I want to say. And it didn't involve Reddit, Gawker, or anything like that. It was bad, though. I'm searching up the story as we speak.
Evading the censor is against forum rules. Infraction issued and relevant word censored.
- Teia
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
You print the story. All those people now have the information you posted. What you didn't know is that I just happened to be really good friends with Joe and was housesitting for the weekend. Hence why I could answer the phone instead of him.
Violentacrez's friends all say it was Brutsch; his voice matches the voice demonstrated to be Violentacrez's; and the Violentacrez account has admitted that the article is correct.
Yeah, haha, it'd be fun if the people at Gawker were dumbasses who didn't do basic checks and had no journalistic integrity. But that ain't it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What? Weirdos on the internet? Also hey, did you guys hear about that new boy band N'Sync?
Who cares? We all know there are creeps on the internet. This is not surprising even in the least bit. I bet you I could log into League of Legends and find you ten guys just like this guy in under an hour.
What? Weirdos on the internet? Also hey, did you guys hear about that new boy band N'Sync?
Who cares? We all know there are creeps on the internet. This is not surprising even in the least bit. I bet you I could log into League of Legends and find you ten guys just like this guy in under an hour.
He's big enough that stopping him deals a heavy blow to the propagation of pedophilia online.
He's big enough that stopping him deals a heavy blow to the propagation of pedophilia online.
Not really, it isn't like he was shooting the stuff in his basement or whatever. Don't shoot the messenger, etc. The subreddit would (and likely will) run itself without him, it's not that big of a deal. He's one guy who wasn't trying particularly hard to cover his tracks. He wasn't really propagating anything, he was just taking part in a community that would have otherwise existed anyway. People make him out to be way more important than he is.
Not really, it isn't like he was shooting the stuff in his basement or whatever. Don't shoot the messenger, etc. The subreddit would (and likely will) run itself without him, it's not that big of a deal. He's one guy who wasn't trying particularly hard to cover his tracks. He wasn't really propagating anything, he was just taking part in a community that would have otherwise existed anyway. People make him out to be way more important than he is.
"This ****'s going to happen anyway" is a terrible argument and is more commonly used to justify the sale of illegal drugs.
This guy wasn't the messenger, he was the provider.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The guy is a huge creeper but that doesn't give the reporter license to ruin his entire life for a small bit of very fleeting internet fame.
Well, here's the thing: He went out of his way to violate others' privacy, defending what was seen as his right to post voyeuristic pictures on Reddit. Are there really any grounds upon which someone can justify flagrant and gross violation of others' privacy yet still demand that their own privacy be sacrosanct?
Well, here's the thing: He went out of his way to violate others' privacy, defending what was seen as his right to post voyeuristic pictures on Reddit. Are there really any grounds upon which someone can justify flagrant and gross violation of others' privacy yet still demand that their own privacy be sacrosanct?
I don't think he expected that. I mean, I read the interview. He was kind of just like "Heh, yeah, that's me..." So I guess you can't really say he was expecting his right to privacy to be sacred.
Well, here's the thing: He went out of his way to violate others' privacy, defending what was seen as his right to post voyeuristic pictures on Reddit. Are there really any grounds upon which someone can justify flagrant and gross violation of others' privacy yet still demand that their own privacy be sacrosanct?
And his wife and son in the military get caught in the crossfire. Actions of this sort have repercussions beyond "That creeper got what was coming to him".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All the kids who played the blues
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
The most noteworthy part of the story to me is that, as another user already pointed out, despite Gawker's effort to determine his identity, they didn't put in the time to know what a troll is, or at least not figure out how to describe it. He sounds more like a flamer than a troll.
I frequent reddit every day and use it as my main source of news and information and just plain lols. the entire reddit community is not like this jackass, just like the entire MTGS community is not like King Pun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
The guy is a huge creeper but that doesn't give the reporter license to ruin his entire life for a small bit of very fleeting internet fame.
What does that even mean?
Your argument makes no sense; the same could be said about any reporter reporting about any person doing anything bad, ever. Every news story is going to have negative consequences for someone; every article is going to make someone upset; the same is true of every criminal prosecution, and every parking ticket. But the fact that collateral damage happens doesn't imply that we should never punish those doing evil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
And his wife and son in the military get caught in the crossfire. Actions of this sort have repercussions beyond "That creeper got what was coming to him".
These are things he should have taken into account before he decided that being a pervert on reddit was such a high priority in his life.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
There are cases where someone's computer gets hijacked by a pedophile, and then that person uses thier connection to look up porn. It then looks like the owner of the computer is looking it up when in fact it isn't him.
Imagine someone going on line, circumventing the police, and then tarring and feathering some innocent guy in public.
Thats the problem with this. If you think something is up, then go to the police. Don't bring it out in public before its decided in the court of law. Innocent until proven giulty: Its the ethical thing to do.
That being said... If this guy is actually the rael deal and actually did all those things then I have a hard time feelign sorry for him.
Thats the problem with this. If you think something is up, then go to the police. Don't bring it out in public before its decided in the court of law. Innocent until proven giulty: Its the ethical thing to do.
My branch of ethics is hedonism and outing this guy, thereby forcing him off reddit, greatly reduces pain of the victims.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think it is acceptable at all. But I support reddits policy of not allowing personal information to be posted. And I will never take you seriously again when it comes to being an advocate against bullying of LGBTs, as you so hypocritically and callously seem to not have a problem with bullying of other groups despite me pointing out that it may end up leading to a suicide some day.
Doesn't journalism do this (write news stories about people who are doing something sketchy but maybe not technically breaking the law) all the time? How is this different, except that it's done by Gawker and not CBS? After all, major news outlets have picked up the story from Gawker and run as much (if not more) personal information as Gawker has.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Teia was specifically complaining that reddit banned Gawker because it was used to reveal personal information of a reddit user.
One story is worth banning an entire website over?
I think that's a somewhat separate issue, though; I understand Reddit's policy, but since you too have said you oppose his personal information being released, I'm wondering how you think it differs from what a major news organization might do.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This man and his ilk are a cancer. You want to support the growth of individuals to make a society stronger, not encourage ignorance and support degrading women. I have no issue with some woman posting a pornography site or whatever on her own above the age of 18, but "creeping" in vogue is disgusting especially for women who do not want their body parts flashed on internet. If a person wants porn there's certainly no end of it, especially with the internet there's connoisseurs and porn mavens willing to proselytize to the legal porn curious.
Overall, he probably should've invested more time into his love life at home, rather than patrolling the nets. A married setting that sort of example is perverted, equally illegal setting that for younger males.
There are ways to express sexuality and preferences, we all know that even Pompeii has an entire room off limits to people under 18 because it's a giant Roman porn room so it is all too human. But we set up limits and walls, even if that is sometimes as simple as a felt rope and social expectations. This, though, is unbecoming and degenerate of internet culture and stands to reason why social conservative whacko's patrol the internet looking for sites like this one and post garbage.
I've never entertained going to 4chan or reddit, and only know about it what others have written on the subject and expressed their opinions. What I do understand is that 4chan has a vigilante self policing culture and invented things such as pedobear and some more huntings that can be questionable in and of themselves, though. One in which was hunting some 13 year old girl, which in my mind is just as bad as reddit.
These things are sorting themselves out, and sadly it may take decades as your generation writes the internet laws and social norms. The rest of us are just catching up to you hipsters.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This is pretty much spot-on.
But you know what, this could end up hilariously. And I mean it: any of us that absolutely enjoy drama and when lawyers are unleashed should consider this scenario.
You're a troll. You're pretty much notorious, and have pissed off everyone from Jesus Christ to the Muslim guy selling falafel on your street corner. No one really knows your name or who you are.
One day, you piss off some guy at Gawker. He decides, "I'm gonna' stick it to the troll and out him!" So you do all this stuff and come to find out that this guy - let's say that the name is Joe Montana - owns the ISP connection that the material is being posted from, according to reroutes and the like. You've ruled out proxy servers and the like.
Well, one day you decide to call him up. However, I pick up. You go, "Ha, Joe Montana! I know you're the infamous (insert troll name here)!" Now, being the actual troll, I play along. You tell me you're going to do a story. I play the part. I act all indignant, spout off the usual stuff of you not being able to print my identity without my express permission. But I play along, I admit to everything, including being this "Joe Montana" guy. I admit to everything. All the trolling, all the hurt feelings, I tell you I did it. I'm not lying: I am the troll.
You print the story. All those people now have the information you posted. What you didn't know is that I just happened to be really good friends with Joe and was housesitting for the weekend. Hence why I could answer the phone instead of him.
Now you have "outted" me. Joe's work, meanwhile, is being spammed with hatemail and prank calls. His house phone and cell are constantly ringing, and his e-mail is chock full of death threats. He's fired. He doesn't realize what's going on until one day, a month or two later, he is told about your post.
He calls Gawker, or e-mails. No one listens. Gawker is sure they have the right guy. Meanwhile, Reddit decides to ban Gawker from the site for "outing" the troll. Gawker takes this is further proof they were right, despite Reddit's stated rules that a ban for outing or disclosing personal information does not necessarilly mean you were right. It's sort of like Wikipedia's concept: outing a member and getting caught results in a ban, whether or not you are correct in the information you revealed.
Now Gawker is deep ****. The strongest piece of evidence they had? The ISP that the trolling was done through came from Joe Montana's modem/router. But the router wasn't protected. I was leeching off of him, and because of that you didn't know it was actually me.
Congratulations, Gawker. You are on the wrong end of a multi-million dolar lawsuit, to the point that you will probably never be taken seriously again. And what's more? You allowed me to troll to a far greater audience than I originally had. Thank you!
Do you think this is a joke? I'll look it up, but this exact same scenario happened back in...2002, I want to say. And it didn't involve Reddit, Gawker, or anything like that. It was bad, though. I'm searching up the story as we speak.
Evading the censor is against forum rules. Infraction issued and relevant word censored.
- Teia
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Violentacrez's friends all say it was Brutsch; his voice matches the voice demonstrated to be Violentacrez's; and the Violentacrez account has admitted that the article is correct.
Yeah, haha, it'd be fun if the people at Gawker were dumbasses who didn't do basic checks and had no journalistic integrity. But that ain't it.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Who cares? We all know there are creeps on the internet. This is not surprising even in the least bit. I bet you I could log into League of Legends and find you ten guys just like this guy in under an hour.
Because we care about facts.
He's big enough that stopping him deals a heavy blow to the propagation of pedophilia online.
Not really, it isn't like he was shooting the stuff in his basement or whatever. Don't shoot the messenger, etc. The subreddit would (and likely will) run itself without him, it's not that big of a deal. He's one guy who wasn't trying particularly hard to cover his tracks. He wasn't really propagating anything, he was just taking part in a community that would have otherwise existed anyway. People make him out to be way more important than he is.
Because we care about facts.
"This ****'s going to happen anyway" is a terrible argument and is more commonly used to justify the sale of illegal drugs.
This guy wasn't the messenger, he was the provider.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
Well, here's the thing: He went out of his way to violate others' privacy, defending what was seen as his right to post voyeuristic pictures on Reddit. Are there really any grounds upon which someone can justify flagrant and gross violation of others' privacy yet still demand that their own privacy be sacrosanct?
I think you missed the point. Here it is.
I don't think he expected that. I mean, I read the interview. He was kind of just like "Heh, yeah, that's me..." So I guess you can't really say he was expecting his right to privacy to be sacred.
Because we care about facts.
And his wife and son in the military get caught in the crossfire. Actions of this sort have repercussions beyond "That creeper got what was coming to him".
Would learn my licks with a bottle neck slide
stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.
I frequent reddit every day and use it as my main source of news and information and just plain lols. the entire reddit community is not like this jackass, just like the entire MTGS community is not like King Pun.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
What does that even mean?
Your argument makes no sense; the same could be said about any reporter reporting about any person doing anything bad, ever. Every news story is going to have negative consequences for someone; every article is going to make someone upset; the same is true of every criminal prosecution, and every parking ticket. But the fact that collateral damage happens doesn't imply that we should never punish those doing evil.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
These are things he should have taken into account before he decided that being a pervert on reddit was such a high priority in his life.
There are cases where someone's computer gets hijacked by a pedophile, and then that person uses thier connection to look up porn. It then looks like the owner of the computer is looking it up when in fact it isn't him.
Imagine someone going on line, circumventing the police, and then tarring and feathering some innocent guy in public.
Thats the problem with this. If you think something is up, then go to the police. Don't bring it out in public before its decided in the court of law. Innocent until proven giulty: Its the ethical thing to do.
That being said... If this guy is actually the rael deal and actually did all those things then I have a hard time feelign sorry for him.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
My branch of ethics is hedonism and outing this guy, thereby forcing him off reddit, greatly reduces pain of the victims.