Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Hunter Moore’s Revenge Porn Site Will Map Submitted Photos to People’s Addresses (betabeat.com)
40 points by iProject 1697 days ago | hide | past | web | 55 comments | favorite

Willfully and gleefully helping to destroy people's lives. My brain normally just shuts down at such a level of awfulness, which means it's probably worth trying to understand, at least at the intellectual level.

I mean, is this just straight up sadism? Is the guy just happy ruining stuff, a child knocking over blocks, except that he's in a grown man's body? Doesn't seem implausible, but I don't feel like I understand it any better.

Is it the money? A cold calculation? But he seems to be so happy about everything, and frankly, not bright enough for that. "I have nerds for days... I have nerds on nerds." Really?

Is he one of those that just can't back down from an argument? The article mentions he was recently in a physical fight. Maybe he did something jerky a long time ago, someone called him out on his jerkyness, and so he doubled down, was even jerkier, just to show that other guy. He did that a couple of times, just to prove he couldn't be called out on stuff and it became a habit. Now he's wired to seek out stuff that other people will react poorly to, because in some portion of his brain it translates to him winning an argument.

I like that third explanation the best, because there are parts of the behavior I can relate to. I can sort of understand how it could happen. But this guy is so far out there, I just have no idea. My own emotions are probably a really crappy guide for figuring out how that guy ticks.

In order for his site to succeed it will depend on thousands of "sadists" submitting content, and thousands more viewing it (and paying? or adverts?).

It will be a sad day for society - the best we can do is not give his site the Oxygen of publicity.

A friend's ex-girlfriend was plastered on a site like this some years ago by another ex's friends. She was underage in the photos and it wouldn't surprise me if middle and high schoolers use a service like this as much if not more than those over 18 in order to shame their classmates and former flings. The publicity this is already receiving makes it more at-risk for such an audience, and so I hope that ends up being the downfall.

It's just sex. If the society didn't regard this activity as shameful then this website wouldn't have the same kind of attraction.

I imagine a website where people would post photos of people enjoying a glass of wine :)

I wouldn't want photos of me doing anything uploaded without my permission, visible to anyone and tagged with my name and address.

Just because something is private doesn't mean it's shameful.

I agree but admit that the site wouldn't have the same traction if it contained photos of other private activities like for example people brushing their teeth.

You must be new to the internets.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. And it's not about "sending a message", it's just gleeful vandalism. Lulz. It's also about exploiting society's disproportionate obsession regarding nudity and sex. But not with the goal of changing anything - no. It's just fun to see lives of stupid people destroyed.

It's somewhat like being a pyromaniac - you like to see things burn. Though just having that mindset doesn't make you an arsonist - that's a pyromaniac that's also a sociopath.

And.. in a way it's about holding a mirror up to society. All the guy does is let you post a picture. Then the rest of society destroys lives. Over something they themselves do each night.

Honestly, I understand him. This is exactly the kind of site I'd build if I were socipathic.

His nerds for days comment is quite frankly, bizarre, agreed. I feel a bit sorry for him actually though. My bet is that he was probably abused as a kid and has some real issues. If he wasn't in love with lulz so much, rather than creating some shock porn sites he'd probably join the TSA or something to get his rocks off in controlling and damaging other people.

As somebody interested in peoples' motivations though, this seems puzzling. Outside of the modest burst of media attention he gets for doing it, I don't see a reason why he would add addresses to his site's pictures. The idea of mapping personally identifying information about people to certain unique numbers or addresses isn't a new concept as http://www.dirtyphonebook.com and other sites use numbers and things of that nature to link peoples' identities. But I think that inviting people to list an address is probably crossing one bridge too far.


My own emotions are probably a really crappy guide for figuring out how that guy ticks.

I would assume that you are correct, given what seems to be a bent for manipulating people and a desire for notoriety because of it as well as what appears to be an attraction to chaos (e.g violent confrontations). I would assume that this guy has a touch of some form of Antisocial Personality Disorder such as Sociopathy. It's is difficult for someone to understand how a Sociopath thinks because it is extremely foreign to how a normal person thinks. The best way to describe it is to not think of people as humans but rather look at them as a hunter looks at prey. They are a trophy or rather controlling and manipulating them is a trophy. They do not view others as equal to them and view themselves as a being unto themselves as elite if you will. It's hard to say whether or not this guys suffers from Sociopathy but he sure does have a few of the markers for it.

> Is it the money?

It's always the money. If there's no revenue stream, small sites stay small and you never hear about them.

I have quite a few friends (through the music industry) that know Hunter pretty well and have told me quite a few stories about him, his actions, his personality, etc. I also know a small handful of girls that had photos of themselves posted on his site IsAnyoneUp. And at one point, I was even almost referred to him to work on IsAnyoneUp, BUT I quickly made it obvious I wanted absolutely nothing to do with that type of site.

I honestly consider a person like Hunter, a true psychopath. After hearing the stories about him, he just reminds me of the joker in The Dark Knight. With that, the quote "Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn" fits him very well. It sickens me that someone can actually get such a head high over ruining other peoples lives. It also frustrates me so much because I saw first hand the pain and hopelessness he caused some of my innocent friends (the girls that had their pictures posted) over the content he had on his site. I will never understand a person like this and why they do the horrible things they do. :/

I will never understand a person like this and why they do the horrible things they do.

My guess?


Seriously, this guy sounds like he's reveling in being the "bad guy", trolling for media attention and clicks.

We have all been trolled.

Lots of people want to have an effect on the world.

It would be nice to have a positive effect, but that often involves a lot of work.

So just have a negative effect. It's like griefers in online games.

I've actually met him. The way he's portrayed in the media is.... accurate.

While he may feel safe under the CDA, all it takes is one jury in one jurisdiction. There are so many laws on the books in so many states (not to mention the body of common law from court cases), that he should find himself in hot water. Not only civil but criminal. Especially when his stated intentions reflect pretty clear mens rea [1]. Willful blindness would be bad enough but his quotes are far worse.

Ventures that feel the need to state "It's completely legal! my lawyers checked" are usually a bad idea.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

He's getting into the business of destroying lives. I don't think it's lawyers that will end him.

Whatever happens, the pushback by policy makers will likely result in overbearing regulations that affect all Internet users.

An even better reason for us ("us" being an extremely general term for Internet users that I use without asking anyone's permission) to figure out someway to stop him before the legislators make things even worse.

There was a profile on him a while back, and he came across as the biggest douchebag that ever lived but if he thinks he can get away with basically enabling stalking he's probably going to find out rapidly that he's not as sheltered under the law as he hopes.

I have a feeling this is going to end as an ironic morality tale, where his address will end up published online by Anonymous or /b/ or the like.

Pretty much, eventually he'll piss off the wrong person, and they'll either have lots of money and make sure he gets done for something, or they'll be incredibly nasty and find out where he lives and either post it online for some just desserts, or go give him a slap. Or both.

Here's the article I think you meant. I remember reading it, he comes across as a giant scumbag.

He doesn't do a very good at justifying his behaviour, though, which I think is weird. Most people at least try to justify the things they do, so as to not have an internal struggle. He doesn't seem to have any problems with it.


Not to be a profit-motivated-douchebag here...but what's the point of this exactly? I mean, what value does adding addresses serve to the bottom line? The site will already draw traffic because: it's porn. There's already, I think in EVERYONE's opinion, sufficient schadenfreude from strangers' private photos being posted online.

And so what does adding addresses do? OK, it gives the submitter more of a feeling of power. For the average gawker...how many of them are going to get significant value from knowing the address? And OK, inevitably, there will be a few users who get "value" from the address, and these users will cause significant blowback towards your already over-the-top site. The only logical reason I can think of going this legally questionable (nevermind unethical) route is that he's afraid he's not getting enough attention as it is.

This seems more like a pathological desire for chaos and misery than any actual entrepreneurship.

I mean, what value does adding addresses serve to the bottom line?

Because a competitor site did it. Check out this blog[1] for some details.

Granted, that site did it because they wanted to profit from people paying to get their stuff taken down while pretending to be a lawyer. Which may have crossed a line which will land those sociopaths in jail.

[1] http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/

>Because a competitor site did it.

According to the article, Hunter Moore also ran that site as well.

"Is Anybody Down" is the "new" site that Marc Randazza has set sights on destroying.

Amusingly enough, it looks like the company he's working for to destroy that site makes its money - at least indirectly - from putting up embarrassing information about people and making them pay to get it removed.

"And so what does adding addresses do? OK, it gives the submitter more of a feeling of power. For the average gawker...how many of them are going to get significant value from knowing the address? And OK, inevitably, there will be a few users who get "value" from the address, and these users will cause significant blowback towards your already over-the-top site. The only logical reason I can think of going this legally questionable (nevermind unethical) route is that he's afraid he's not getting enough attention as it is."

The only thing I can think of is that it separates his site from other voyeur/peeping tom fetish sites and takes it a step further. For somebody with that kind of fetish, I'm sure this site would be their number one choice. Now, is that his mentality? Surely doesn't seem that way based on his comments, but that is all I could think of as a reasonable explanation.

The site exists to extort those in the pictures. Adding the address isn't for the gawkers; it's to scare the photographed.

Press hits.

I always assumed that those "girlfriend revenge" and "facebook hacked" type porn sites were just bullshit and it was content that had been sold legitimately or maybe ripped from /r/gonewild (NSFW).

If you look at the bottom of these sites there is a 2257 compliance statement which means that they must keep records on all of the models (copies of passport etc) to prove that they are over 18.

They also say they require agreement from anybody appearing in the photos.

If there is a fetish or interest in a specific topic, there will be sites faking the shots for more sales - all about supply and demand. There are then obviously also the people with real content that are looking to share that as well. It's like the movie 8mm - they are searching for proof of a snuff film, and while everyone says they don't exist, and all the ones they find are fakes, they finally uncover the one they are holding on to is indeed real. The majority of those sites will be fake - but there will be some that are real as well.

"websites are immune from legal responsibility for content submitted by others."

I'm guessing he doesn't read the news.

...and this is why we can't have anything nice. This should give all of our lawmakers, wanting to impose more and more restrictions on how we use the web, more fuel for their cause.

Well, this all sounds sufficiently horrifying and terrible.

It's both of those things, but I don't understand why there needs to be a post on HN about it. Stuff like this has existed for a very long time, just not in such an explicit, brazen form.

Because awareness is going to be his downfall; this type of service should simply not exist.

I will also add classless and a scathing condemnation of nations declining moral standard.

Reading about a person like Hunter Moore is one of the rare times I'm very glad that Anonymous and their extra-judicial brand of justice exists.

Cue The Dark Knight "hero we deserve" quote.

You do realize that anonymous and their 4chan originators have been doing this kind of thing for years, right?

Off the top of my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/jessi-slaughter

I wouldn't expect much backlash from anonymous on this one.

Yep, I'm aware of some of the nasty things that happen on 4chan.

In my defense, I made it clear that I think this is one of those rare cases where Internet-vigilante justice is not only excusable, but possibly even noble. This man is a truly reprehensible human being, and may have found a way to continue to act in this way with impunity. If there is absolutely no recourse available to civil society, I really don't have a problem with him getting the worst Anonymous has to offer - which, let's face it, pales in comparison to what the state can dish out when it wants to.

In their defense, it seems like many of the high-profile, highly organized campaigns by Anonymous have been against worthy targets like drug cartels and cults, rather than some random vile post by some script kiddy on 4chan.

I could very easily see them going after this guy.

Sounds like a publicity stunt, like when Ryanair says they are going to start charging for using the restroom on the plane. Saying something ridiculous is what gets you free press, not actually doing it.

For some more context on why this guy is a giant douchebag: http://www.vice.com/read/hunter-moores-new-site-will-make-ge... NWS! Although the url might give that away.

And: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-most-hated-man-... a much less NWS but I'd still have a think if you're at work.

He's essentially an internet troll, he enjoys fame, he likes being mean, he wants to be idolised and hated. He thinks he's in the right. More importantly he's said before "someone was going to monetize it", which is weird as prior to it I can't remember it ever being as big as it became because of him.

This guy is a scumbag.

I know what goes around, comes around, but sometimes I wish that karma would just hurry it up a bit.

Some interesting background reading on this from the Village Voice, back in May:


The report implies that some of the IAU content may have been through a Facebook social engineering hack...a hacker gains access to one person's account and then chats that person's friends, claiming to have lost her phone and needing a friend to read her back Facebook's password confirmation code, which has been sent to the friend's phone.

The confirmation code, of course, is for the friend's account...who know finds him/herself locked out of their FB and linked social accounts.

Eventually, one of these kind of sites will put up a photo of the child of someone who is in the field of waste management.

Then the site owner might find that legal safe harbors are not the only kind of harbor he should have been concerned with.

From the linked article:

Three things fangirls have tweeted at him in the past week:

"If you had aids, id still f--k you just to say i have aids and that i got aids from you";

"One day I'm going to have Hunter Moore tattooed on my stomach with an arrow pointing down that says 'God Was Here'"

"I wonder how many girls have tried to steal @Huntermoore used condoms."

These comments are so over-the-top that I can only imagine that he is controlling the accounts that tweeted them.

You're attributing to staging what can be adequately explained by reality.

See: the myriad women tweeting about how they would love to get beaten up by Chris Brown.

For better or for worse, being the bad boy "works". And it works extraordinarily well for a larger proportion than we'd like to believe.

How is it any different than a coed distributing a powerpoint presentation about her sexual history as a "thesis" complete with photos, rankings and commentary about their partners performance? I don't believe that woman or the social and email networks the document traversed faced any criminal mischief charges? People have always took console during breakups with their friends with whom they share (largely untrue) stories and get positive feedback as therapy. The concept of "friends" has clearly changed now encompassing a huge population so why not exploit that as a startup?

As long as the information presented is not fraudulently obtained, I fail to see how at first glance how the company is going to be held legally culpable. The only difficult area will be as it was before: restricting information about minors (especially images) and ensuring that the site is not used to harass victims of a crime.

However, what has changed since his last website went offline is the implementation of many new "cyber-bullying" laws. I think the case could be made that posting information like this now would amount to "bullying" in many jurisdictions. But in my opinion, these new statutes really need to be tested and bounds set as they are poorly conceived laws.

As for decaying moral standards, any ethical debate about sexual morality in the US lost its legitimacy a long time ago. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Not judging women as "sluts" or men as "dbags" for their behavior has the necessary consequence of accepting just exactly this sort of thing on the flip side of that coin.

This guy will face a lot of negative publicity that's to be sure, but it's the kind of attention he apparently craves. And from the success of his previous endeavor (his alexa ranking was not insignificant), it seems more likely than not he will succeed in achieving some SEO success with this one as well. What is missing from the article and what intrigues me from an entrepreneurial perspective is any sense of how he intends to make money. And I kind of wonder how he is getting good legal advice as, if I recall correctly, he skipped out on paying his last attorneys [0]. Also if memory serves, he sold the trademark and concept for isanyoneup to someone whom expressly wanted to shut it down. I wonder what the fine print of that contract has to say about future endeavors.

[0] http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/HunterMoore...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact