

Unmasking The Biggest Troll on Reddit - ck2
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/10/man-behind-troll-who-got-gawker-banned-reddit/57916/

======
gilgoomesh
This action against violentacrez seems nasty and vitriolic.

His only "crime" in the article is moderating/posting non-nude pictures of
teenage girls -- while removing actual nude pictures of the same.

This is not an actual crime and while society discourages non-nude pictures of
teenage girls -- as it forms part of an unofficial no-go zone between adult
pornography and pedophilia -- there are whole industries (modelling, beauty
pageants, pop singers) that thrive doing exactly this to 16 year old girls.

So Adrian Chen is creeped out by a legal behavior and decides to defame
someone who is -- on all other apparent metrics -- a positive, diligent member
of a number of communities. Additionally, Chen has heaped shame and entirely
fictional guilt (since there's no crime) on this person to the point where he
feels he needs to withdraw.

Chen seems like the troll here.

~~~
klodolph
> So Adrian Chen is creeped out by a legal behavior

This is a conflation of "illegal behavior" with "creepy behavior", but they
are distinct categories.

> there are whole industries [...] that thrive doing exactly this to 16 year
> old girls.

It is not relevant that other people engage in similar behavior.

> So Adrian Chen is creeped out by a legal behavior and decides to defame
> someone

Defamation need not be false. (If it were false you could call it "slander" or
"libel".) Again, this is conflation of illegal behavior with creepy behavior;
there are lots of legal creepy things and lots of illegal things that aren't
creepy.

> entirely fictional guilt (since there's no crime)

Conflation of meanings of the word guilt, which has a legal definition as well
as a common definition. I could be "guilty" of standing a girl up on a date
even though it's perfectly legal to do so.

~~~
gilgoomesh
I accept your criticism that I've conflated legality with Chen's personal
morality.

However, I think Chen has taken this action because he thinks violentacrez was
objectively and unambiguous immoral -- which I think is not a univerally
agreed point. I think alternative moral perspectives are indicated by the
legal boundaries and the behaviors of other exploititative industries. I think
this indicates that different moral standards on this issue are tolerated,
even if they're still actively campaigned against.

I do now feel weird for defending ephebophiles.

------
ck2
You cannot say both of these things together and be a decent human being:

 _I asked if he regretted anything he had posted, now that he'd be found out.
No, he said. "I would stand by exactly what I've done."_

 _"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 said. "I do my
job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in
my spare time."_

So the real answer is yes, he does regret it, will probably have real
percussions that affect him and his family and saying things online should be
filtered with the same level as if you were talking to someone in person.

Free speech does not mean speech without responsibility.

~~~
kennywinker
Not that I'm defending violentacrez, but to say that he fears reprisal does
not mean he did anything wrong.

It's really hard to get a clear picture, because I'm not familiar with
violentacrez's ouvre, but being painted as a child pornographer would probably
hurt most people's career.

I've seen r/jailbait. It was creepy, but as another commenter points out, not
more creepy than most child/teen beauty pageants. I think because it's on a
strange + ungoverned corner of the internet, it was easily painted as illegal
when it was only very creepy.

------
sauteedbiscuits
For those saying hes a normal guy who just likes trolling, the article
mentions "Michael Brutsch had sex with his step daughter"

He was also the creator of subreddits that dealt with glorifying beating women
and children. He has 100% of the right to live on the line and be a griefer
and/or troll. He also has 100% of the right to feel the wrath of people he
pisses off.

As a internet free speech advocate, I am sad that things are in this
situation. As a parent and decent human being, I am not. He is surely on many
FBI lists now.

~~~
shinratdr
> For those saying hes a normal guy who just likes trolling, the article
> mentions "Michael Brutsch had sex with his step daughter"

According to him, while trolling. Yeah, real solid source. Definitely grounds
to ruin someone's life.

Also, since when is that a crime? Or even immoral? It _could_ be a massive
breach of trust and immoral, depending on the situation. However depending on
the relationship between wife, daughter and the guy, it could be just regular
cheating. Or not even that.

He didn't rape his stepdaughter, or coerce his daughter, or have consensual
sex with his underage stepdaughter. What he did was have consensual sex with a
grown woman he has no blood relation to and for all you know has no parental
relationship with either.

Hardly the "case closed" indictment you want it to be, even if it allows you
to string together the words "sex" and "daughter" in the same sentence to
elicit a knee-jerk negative response.

~~~
kennywinker
Woody Allen did the same. He took a lot of flack for it, but people still
watch his movies.

