Reddit politics section bans links to Gawker over right to privacy of a mod of /r/creepshots

[ríomhaire]

For those who are blissfully ignorant /r/creepshots was a section of Reddit (now closed over this drama) where people uploaded candid pictures of women without their consent for the purposes of masturbating to them. This appears to have started when a Gawker writer called Adrian Chen was going to do a profile piece on a guy who was a mod of /r/creepshots who decided he didn't like people invading his privacy and has deleted his account.

The main politics board and a hell of a lot of users of the site have stood in solidarity with the fallen mod and /r/politics has banned all links to Gawker over an article that has not even been published yet.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/1...awker-to-defend-creepy-photos.html?mid=google
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/119z4z/an_announcement_about_gawker_links_in_rpolitics/
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/118qdg/the_real_reason_why_violentacrez_deleted_his/
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDr...pthe_great_dox_of_2012_or_doxgate_a_recap_of/



I don't know about you but I find the argument that many of those people are spouting, that your right to privacy ends the minute you walk out onto a public street, is complete bullshit. Photographing someone as part of a crowd or capturing people on CCTV is entirely different to taking a specific photo of them (often where you can see their face and thus identify them) is completely different, especially when the purpose is to wank to it.

 

[Vegeta897]

I don't really get the fuss.

(often where you can see their face and thus identify them)

Identify them, and? "Oh look, it's that girl I know, she's out in public doing nothing of particular interest! What a scandal!"

The fact that people are fapping to it is not an argument. People can fap to anything. Should we ban photos of children?

There have been forums since forever that are like this. Just because it's on reddit is probably the only reason it got attention.

I don't see how they're harming anyone, really.

 

[Bad^Hat]

You know, I think it's possible I might actually hate Gawker's noxious bullshit more than the prospect of people masturbating to candid photos of strangers on the internet. Yeah, no, I'm pretty comfortable with that position.

On a more serious note, I can appreciate the principle they're trying to stand up for, it seems like they're just hoisting a very unfortunate banner in its defence. From skimming those posts it seems like violentacrez was also a mod on /r/jailbait among other things, which makes the moral high ground somewhat difficult to survey. Wait I spoke too soon, /r/MensRights have also pledged their support! Hahahaha. Oh, Reddit.

Edit: Lol wow yeah he curated kind of a lot of shall-we-say-questionable subreddits.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co...ement_about_gawker_links_in_rpolitics/c6kqph0

 

[Krynn72]

This sort of thing has been happening, legally, for decades. Why is it suddenly such a problem? Paparazzi, Private detectives, police, and regular ol' creeps. Was anybody actually under the impression that this wasn't happening until imageboards started showing up?

 

[ríomhaire]

I don't think anyone is saying that Krynn.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm just confused as to why its a problem to take pictures of people in public now when nobody gave a shit last year or the year before (and so on) when it was just as prolific.

I just dont see what the problem is. You're out in public, people are seeing you with their eyes, what difference does it make if the very same image their eyes see is recorded on a camera?

In that context, I have to agree that what the Gawker guy was trying to do was shitty. Inciting an internet pitchforks and torches mob to harass some guy who wasn't doing anything wrong is shitty.

 

[JossiRossi]

Krynn, I can only assume that you have no one in your life that you care about. That's the only way that someone could rationalize this. No family. No friends. No co-workers. You could not possibly have even the faintest hint of concern for any single fellow human being around you to think that strangers taking pictures of said love one with the express purpose of masturbation and sharing to the internet as a whole is "not doing anything wrong."

I don't want some perverts taking pictures of myself with the intent to spread and share and be complimented and encouraged to continue. So why would I ever want that to happen to anyone else?

This is not some kind of moral grey area.

 

[ríomhaire]

Oh thank god someone else who sees it as being ****ed up. I figured it was going to be Eejit though.

 

[nofreeman]

Sorry but i have to agree with Krynn, its been happening for years and now people react to it, seems a little bullshit to me.

 

[Krynn72]

Sorry but i have to agree with Krynn, its been happening for years and now people react to it, seems a little bullshit to me.

Are you sure you want to agree with me? I'm so heartless that it might be contagious.


A person taking a picture of me when im walking, fully clothed down a street, and then going home and jerking off to the pic doesnt affect me in any way. Releasing it on the internet affects me slightly more, but no moreso than any picture I put on facebook, which is to say, practically not at all. That goes the same for anybody I know. Not getting all in a huff over it doesnt makes me sociopathically heartless, so why don't you go **** yourself with those accusations.

 

[JossiRossi]

Yeah, I too don't get what the big deal was when we stopped stoning women. No one ever cared before, right?

You're a dipshit at best, and a sympathizer of creeps at worst. Just because something hasn't caused a big ruckus in the past means nothing about the relevance of the issue today.

Can you imagine having a friend link you to a picture of yourself, being regarded as a worthless piece of meat? Literally cum upon and considered so unworthy as to even be considered a person? And not only that but by people who all gather around and THANK the piece of scum who took the picture? And then when someone tries to stand up for you, they are told to just deal with it. It's just how things are they say. I hope you never do, but god damn it'd be poetic.

[Edit]
Boy Krynn, I sure am positive that these harmless photographers would NEVER do something as to take a more compromising photo given the chance. They are perfectly stable contributing members of society right? I bet they'd never just go to a different reddit subforum and post less passive pictures.

Also they ask for ages right? Oh, that's right,. that'd ruin the thrill they get from stealing someone's picture without their knowledge. It's a ****ing control fetish and far from some healthy "normal" thing that just happens.

 

[JossiRossi]

This deserves it's own post. When someday someone googles my name and finds this post. I have the good fortune that I will have not been caught saying it's ok to masturbate to photos taken of strangers without their knowledge, and in fact stood AGAINST it.

Just be proud of the legacy you leave, because we live in an age where things aren't forgotten.

 

[Stigmata]

This is ridiculous and borders on the concept of thoughtcrime. If a photo taken in a public place is used as a masturbatory tool, that is functionally no different than using the memory of seeing that same thing from that same perspective as a masturbatory tool. Are we going to ban eyes and brains?

 

[JossiRossi]

Thoughtcrime doesn't usually involve actions. Which this does.

 

[nofreeman]

This deserves it's own post. When someday someone googles my name and finds this post. I have the good fortune that I will have not been caught saying it's ok to masturbate to photos taken of strangers without their knowledge, and in fact stood AGAINST it.

Just be proud of the legacy you leave, because we live in an age where things aren't forgotten.

I wouldn't say forgotten, more or less it will be tossed in a hole where most of things the internet dumps.Do you really think they have stopped stoning people just because you read about it in some shitty blog or newspaper??

 

[Stigmata]

Thoughtcrime doesn't usually involve actions. Which this does.

Hence the phrase "borders on". If you're going to attempt to refute or debate my statements, you're required to also attempt to read.

 

[kineaesth]

being regarded as a worthless piece of meat? Literally cum upon and considered so unworthy as to even be considered a person? And not only that but by people who all gather around and THANK the piece of scum who took the picture?

do you have AIM because wow

 

[Vegeta897]

Can you imagine having a friend link you to a picture of yourself, being regarded as a worthless piece of meat? Literally cum upon and considered so unworthy as to even be considered a person? And not only that but by people who all gather around and THANK the piece of scum who took the picture?

I'd be creeped out, but I wouldn't have any real problem with it. What possible form of power or influence could anyone have over me with a photo they either took of me in public or one I posted on the internet?
And that's even assuming I'm going to even be aware of the fact that this is going on, which seems nigh impossible if they're getting pictures of strangers. Unless this so called friend likes to peruse those boards and he thought it apt to mention to me that he saw me there.

Boy Krynn, I sure am positive that these harmless photographers would NEVER do something as to take a more compromising photo given the chance. They are perfectly stable contributing members of society right? I bet they'd never just go to a different reddit subforum and post less passive pictures.

I sure am positive you are shoving the argument down a slippery slope.

Also they ask for ages right? Oh, that's right,. that'd ruin the thrill they get from stealing someone's picture without their knowledge. It's a ****ing control fetish and far from some healthy "normal" thing that just happens.

Why would the age matter? It's not porn. You can go find pictures of kids in bathing suits on the net if you want. Or go to the beach and take them. What is the problem? Who are you harming? Unless you were to actually do it in such a way that the parents saw you and it made them uncomfortable.
Which goes back to the slippery slope argument. We're talking about the idea of people getting their rocks off in private, to someone else, who is unaware. Any advances beyond this that you want to bring up are totally beside the point. It's like saying a dude who likes rape porn is ****ed up because "he'll probably commit a rape some day."

This deserves it's own post. When someday someone googles my name and finds this post. I have the good fortune that I will have not been caught saying it's ok to masturbate to photos taken of strangers without their knowledge, and in fact stood AGAINST it.

Just be proud of the legacy you leave, because we live in an age where things aren't forgotten.

Wait, are you serious? Was this post genuine?

 

[morgs]

I'd just be happy that someone finds me attractive.

;_;

 

[Vegeta897]

Why do you think I make all those photoshops....

 

[morgs]

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Is he driving a mower in that bubble? Because that'd be even better. "I always wanted to mow like him."

 

[Stigmata]

"I wish I were driving this mower on a trampoline right now."

 

[Raziaar]

Silly censorship to ban gawker links.

I mean really, what does it accomplish?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Well Reddit is the 'front page of the internet' so no more internets for gawker.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'm just confused as to why its a problem to take pictures of people in public now when nobody gave a shit last year or the year before (and so on) when it was just as prolific.

They didn't? I'm pretty sure paparazzi and creeps like this have been widely regarded as scum of the earth for just about as long as I can remember. The people who thought so just had no means of recourse (unless they were within face-punching distance) because it is, as you mentioned, perfectly legal. Now with the internet and the ability to dredge up people's personal info and "publicly" shame them, the people who are (some might say justifiably) bothered by it have a way to retaliate. Not that I agree with their methods, but I can sympathize with where they're coming from, morally.

I just dont see what the problem is. You're out in public, people are seeing you with their eyes, what difference does it make if the very same image their eyes see is recorded on a camera?.

Do dogs have photographic memories? Because your average person doesn't. This is like saying "why watch porn when you could just think about it." It might not seem like much in a culture where every second person has a camera on them at any given time, but when you photograph something you're not just reaching out into the ether and grabbing an image as freshly formed and context-free as it first appeared to you in your head, you're wilfully creating a record of that image for posterity so that others might look at it and form their own conception of it. There is actual intent and consequence behind the action, as commonplace as it might seem today. Some people don't like the idea that their image is being used for others' twisted enjoyment.

Some people also wear skirts and low-cut tops. :v

Silly censorship to ban gawker links.

I mean really, what does it accomplish?

Potentially, less people reading Gawker. I don't care what the reason is, that's a victory in my books.

 

[Eejit]

Sounds like that was some creepy shit. Not justification for locking people up or w/e but hardly laudable.
However, the response (as I understand it) of doing an exposé on the guy modding a subreddit which has no regard for privacy seems fairly appropriate, banning all content from the site doing said exposé does not. Seems a bunch of redditors are scared for their anonymity.

 

[JossiRossi]

Hence the phrase "borders on". If you're going to attempt to refute or debate my statements, you're required to also attempt to read.

There's a pretty massive gap between actions and thoughts. It's binary. One is just a thing running through your head. The other is having done something. An action can not border on only a thought.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Uh, unless you define thinking as an action, which you can very easily do.

 

[ríomhaire]

I would like to echo James' point that just because something has been happening for some time and no one has made a fuss before doesn't mean that it's ok or has always been ok. The people who posted on that reddit page, paparazzi who take intrusive photos for a living, people who buy magazines and papers to see those photos and people who run websites like People of Walmart all deserve a swift punch in the face. As Bat^Hat said these people were previously not in face-punching distance.

Here's the Gawker article BTW: http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web

 

[sinkoman]

Can you imagine having a friend link you to a picture of yourself, being regarded as a worthless piece of meat? Literally cum upon and considered so unworthy as to even be considered a person? And not only that but by people who all gather around and THANK the piece of scum who took the picture? And then when someone tries to stand up for you, they are told to just deal with it. It's just how things are they say. I hope you never do, but god damn it'd be poetic.

It'd be a lot easier to agree with you, if you didn't write like an obnoxious, self-rightous ****. And this is coming from somebody who prides himself on his ability to shit words.

"cum upon"? SERIOUSLY?

I hope the people who matter to you in your life don't wear provocative clothing while out in public, lest they have the thought of their likeness "cum upon" by the scourges of the masturbatory underworld.

 

[kineaesth]

do you have AIM because wow

I'd just like to clarify that I did this post really badly

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

It'd be a lot easier to agree with you, if you didn't write like an obnoxious, self-rightous ****. And this is coming from somebody who prides himself on his ability to shit words.

"cum upon"? SERIOUSLY?

I hope the people who matter to you in your life don't wear provocative clothing while out in public, lest they have the thought of their likeness "cum upon" by the scourges of the masturbatory underworld.

shoot shoot shoot shoot

I am gonna cum all over you

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

The fact that people think this man is defensible is pretty abhorrent. I don't care who blew the whistle on him. Even nastier is the rampant efforts on Reddit's behalf on covering his tracks and shunning Gawker when Michael Brutsch aka Violentacrez and his racket hinged on ideas of "free speech." What a shameful, idiotic series of events.

All rationalized because it's "happened before" -- **** off with that. That's the most overused way of oppressing a group of people openly, these things shouldn't have to be reasoned with. Common sense, morality and accountability do have a place in any situation like this.

That's not to say I don't have my own problems with Gawker. I suggest reading Chen's article regardless--it's well put together, especially for Gawk standards.

I just don't understand defending Michael Brutsch to any degree. Makes me ashamed that people feel they have to cover his tracks. I wonder if Reddit's parent company, media giant Conde Nast (Wired, Vogue, GQ, etc), will jump on this anytime soon.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/us/internet-troll-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Haha.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

that's so video games

 

[Maestro]

It's a good time to cum back to halfli---er, valvetime.net, things haven't changed much.

I'd say my take on this is that if we're going to make this an issue so are any websites that post up pictures of people solely for the purpose of mockery/masturbation/etc. People of Walmart, Totally Looks Like, et. al. are not far removed, and really only their intent distinguishes them. Frankly, I'd say open mockery is more harmful than jerking it to a picture of someone who is decently clothed in a completely public place.

Really, if you ask me, it's not a crime in any way, or even morally wrong. Sure, it's creepy, but this is nowhere near as bad as many places on the internet. Freedom of speech protects anything which is not done explicitly with the intent of harming the subject of said speech. I prefer to live in a place where creeps can creep publicly at their own risk (as Gawker makes obvious using their patented Awful ****ing Journalism(TM)). The frank truth of the matter is that the mod of Reddit is being harmed significantly more than the subjects of his subreddit simply for the fact that he is being made a specific example with his PERSONAL name being placed as part of that. That is a lot more harmful to violentacruz than any picture posted to /r/jailbait or what have you since the subjects of those reddits remain effectively anonymous. This reminds me of that one obese newscaster who recently put a private letter critical of her weight in public, allowing a news crew to find out who the sender was and harass him at his place of work. I can tell you who is using/abusing their position of influence for the purpose of humiliating someone they disagree with, and it's not possible for it to be the subject of the news piece.

 

[JossiRossi]

Maybe you should not have come back.

 

[Maestro]

Maybe you should not have come back.

 

[JossiRossi]

You somehow believe that it is worse to hold people accountable for their actions, than it is to PERFORM those actions.

You seem to dislike the idea of personal accountability online. You defended a man who posted pictures of children in a specifically sexual environment. Congrats.

The fact is, this is the way the internet is going to be. You won't be able to easily hide yourself, and you will be held accountable for your actions. This is no different than going into a crowded room and acting like a jerk. That event will stick, people will talk about it, and depending on the environment it will damage your reputation. For instance, I have no idea if you still use that OKCupid profile using the name MaestroManDan, but if the people looking at your account are smart they will Google your name first, and they might find there way here. I'm sure people will just love your opinions on the surreptitious photography of women for sexual purposes.