|
On October 14 2012 17:28 armada[sb] wrote:
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
No, he's a guy who quite rightly gave a career troll the arsekicking he deserved.
Frankly I think we should make life much harder for the guy.
Seriously. Speaking as a former teacher, if I found out one of my colleagues was posting pictures of his students on that subreddit, or I found out someone's father was doing it I'd be onto the cops faster than you could blink. Anyone who thought this was in any way "justified" should not only be ashamed of themselves but should grow the fuck up and drop their balls. Not only was this subreddit misogynist but it was abusive, illegal in a number of countries AND run by people who were clearly having a wank to it.
If there's ever been a good excuse for mandatory removal of testicles, /r/Creepshots is one of them.
|
On October 12 2012 10:59 hinnolinn wrote:
It's disturbing to me how many of you feel that pictures of unidentified people and information such as name, phone number, marital status, etc. are equal in terms of privacy.
NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING CREEPSHOTS ISN'T MORALLY WRONG
It was trivial to find out who it was. If you read Chen's post, he said all he had to do was match the voice to the one he had already identified.
This is not difficult. The guy was clearly loving his e-celebrity and he's gotten owned because of it. Fantastic. More trolls should be openly outed. This guy was not a fucking defender of free speech. The real defenders of free speech are out there right now, fighting for their lives in countries which ban even the slightest hint of dissent. They are risking their careers to break news of scandals within trusted public organisations.
They are NOT creepy fucks on reddit posting up skirt shots of someone's 15 year old daughter.
|
On October 14 2012 18:49 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:15 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice). Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it. By the nature of the subreddit and it's name, it's not a benefit of the doubt situation - it's the first conclusion that the picture isn't there by your choice.
Whether it's your choice or not is irrelevant. Do you honestly believe every single person will assume the best of you? Hell, there's even someone in this thread who claimed most of the stuff on there are not really candid and are actually intentionally faked. How would you tell the difference? The person whose photo is obviously being inappropriately used here should have the right to say "no, you can't use my photo in that manner." It's completely backwards to defend the person mis-using the photo and say to the victim "don't worry, it wasn't your choice." The ethical line is not that hard to see and most of the creeps know they've crossed it but they hide behind "legality" and "freedom of speech".
On October 14 2012 17:28 armada[sb] wrote:
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
Vigilantism is a double edged sword and honestly, it's not something I would suggest as the first solution. However, even if you disagree with it, why would you side with the douchebag he outted? It's not like the guy's worth sympathizing over. Reading up on his history, anyone would see that this guy is not even just an average douchebag but a disgusting person as a whole.
|
How is it that the same people who cry "Freedom of speech!" here are the ones who cry "Respect my right to privacy, 1984 man!" as soon as a discussion about CCTV comes up?
|
On October 14 2012 19:25 Slakter wrote:
How is it that the same people who cry "Freedom of speech!" here are the ones who cry "Respect my right to privacy, 1984 man!" as soon as a discussion about CCTV comes up?
People often cry freedom of speech over the internet when they're able to hide behind anonymity.
|
never heard of reddit, sounds like digg but more immature
|
Most reasonable people would act with some degree of courtesy in mind when it comes to real life because they know they would be directly accountable for their actions. Apparently, real life deals with the whole controversy of doxing just fine because there is no anonymity and that generally keeps people in check. The anonymity granted by the internet is a privilege, not a means for you to go around acting like a douche. If you're an outstanding douchebag on the internet and somehow get outted for it, don't play the victim. If you wouldn't do the same thing in real life because you knew there would be dire consequences, you're in no position to complain, simple as that. Acting like you're leading the fight to protect freedom of speech is complete bs when all the relevant cases shown are borderline troll attempts and/or barely legal. These types of people undermine the efforts of the real people that are actually putting in significant effort and sacrifice.
|
To update this thread for people who haven't seen the follow up story yet, Violentacrez was fired from his position:
Michael Brutsch, aka Reddit user "Violentacrez," was fired from his position at a financial services company after Gawker revealed his true identity.
Actions have consequences, which is something Michael Brutsch is just starting to learn.
Brutsch, aka "Violentacrez," was Reddit's biggest troll until Gawker exposed his true identify, revealing to the world the man behind questionable forums, such as r/creepshots -- a space dedicated to pictures of women unaware that their photographs had been taken.
Now that the 49-year-old from Arlington, Texas, has been outed, his behavior has caught up with him.
According to The Daily Dot, Brutsch was fired from his position at a financial services company less than 24 hours after Gawker editor Adrian Chen's exposé went live.
Before the article was published, Chen wrote that Brutsch pleaded with him not to reveal his identity, correctly fearing he would lose his job and his ability to provide for his family.
"My wife is disabled. I got a home and a mortgage, and if this hits the fan, I believe this will affect negatively on my employment," he told Gawker. "I do my job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in my spare time."
In a phone conversation, Brutsch admitted to being the Reddit user named Violentacrez, who created or moderated sections dedicated to pornographic and violent images, including subreddits called r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch.
In the days leading up to the big reveal Brutsch deleted his Violentacrez account, and is now posting on Reddit using the account mbrutsch, reports the Daily Dot.
"Nothing like living in the US with a disabled wife and no health insurance," Brutsch wrote on Reddit after he lost his job.
“I'm eligible [for insurance], but COBRA is very expensive. Who can afford to pay 5 times as much for insurance at the very moment they lose their income? Only rich folks can afford COBRA. I have maybe 3 weeks pay in the bank. I just hope I can hold out a month. My wife hasn't been able to work for over a year, and our savings will last about 3 weeks, not considering the current lack of health insurance.”
Brutsch also posted a link to his Paypal account so that fellow Redditors could donate money to him now that he is unemployed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html
Did anyone not see this coming?
|
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
|
On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
I'm not sure exactly what this is in relation to, but I will mention the INCREDIBLE disparity in treatment most societies give to those who are deemed attractive by their standards and those who aren't is most likely not going away any time soon.
|
On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive?
This kills any argument that speaks for shutting down 'creepshots', besides that sneaking pictures of fat people is also morally wrong, but I have never in my life seen any comment claiming that.
Makes me wonder where this hypocrisy comes from.
|
So people that take creepy pictures of women (underage or not) want their privacy respected?
|
On October 17 2012 01:11 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 00:59 raf3776 wrote:
How is it acceptable to post pictures of people that are unattractive and laugh at them but it's not acceptable to take pictures of ppl attractive? This kills any argument that speaks for shutting down 'creepshots', besides that sneaking pictures of fat people is also morally wrong, but I have never in my life seen any comment claiming that. Makes me wonder where this hypocrisy comes from.
Does it? Would a claim of privacy being invaded being made by a larger or uglier person be any less valid than one made by someone who by societal standards is attractive?
|
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.
|
On October 17 2012 01:29 rackdude wrote:
You know, if you think it's so despicable that you don't want anyone to know about what you're doing... don't do it. If you think what you're doing is right, then you shouldn't care who knows.
I don't agree with how generalized this statement is. There are a lot of things that are not wrong to do, but you still don't want everyone to know about, because it is none of their business, and people have a tendency to ostracize stuff that is not necessarily wrong. Let's say you like to smoke weed, and don't think it's wrong to do so. You still don't want it to be public knowledge because it is still illegal. Or you like to have sex with prostitutes, in a country where it is legal. Not any sex slaves from poor countries or anything like that, everything is completely clean. You are not married or have a girlfriend that you cheat on either. You still probably don't want all of your business associates and your mother to know about it, either.
This does not mean that there are no things that are wrong, or anything like that. Just that the fact that you want something to remain hidden does not prove that it is wrong and you should not be doing it.
|
Having seen some of the photos being discussed I really can't understand what's wrong with this, am I alone here?
I have a sister and wouldn't care in the slightest if people took photos of her and discussed them, nor would I care if people did the same about me. What harm are they doing if they don't disclose any personal info etc?
|
It's kind of typical reddit logic to violate people's privacy in a far greater way to show how they are against the violation of people's privacy.
I never saw the subreddit but it doesn't sound much different than laughing at the fat people at Walmart that people sneak pictures of, or the crazy people caught on youtube or WSHH. None of those people gave permission. This stance on privacy while in public seems to be entirely derived from white knighting.
I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X7BWb.gif)
|
Nobody questions anything when the paparazzi get PAID to take pictures of famous people without their consent, but all of a sudden when it is not-famous people getting their pictures taken by people who do it only occasionally it is immoral and illegal? Not only that, but it is worth literally ruining 30+ people's lives over? Give me a break. Anyone that supports this sort of behavior needs to re-evaluate their entire world view.
|
"Violentacrez, who created or moderated sections dedicated to pornographic and violent images, including subreddits called r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."
That's quite the resume.
|
On October 17 2012 01:47 Ryka wrote:
Having seen some of the photos being discussed I really can't understand what's wrong with this, am I alone here?
I have a sister and wouldn't care in the slightest if people took photos of her and discussed them, nor would I care if people did the same about me. What harm are they doing if they don't disclose any personal info etc?
You should ask her whether she would care if the photos being taken were without her knowledge or consent, and taken in what could be an explicit manner, along with being prime masturbatory material. If she responds negatively, then I think you may have some justification for feeling that way, but I'm going to make an assumption and say she probably will care.
Men don't have to deal with the same things as women on a broad societal basis (personal safety, sexual assault, discrimination, among other things), so I wouldn't extend the notion of others, especially females, sharing your feelings too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
