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.
It will be a sad day for society - the best we can do is not give his site the Oxygen of publicity.
I imagine a website where people would post photos of people enjoying a glass of wine :)
Just because something is private doesn't mean it's shameful.
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.
Honestly, I understand him. This is exactly the kind of site I'd build if I were socipathic.
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.
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.
It's always the money. If there's no revenue stream, small sites stay small and you never hear about them.
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. :/
Seriously, this guy sounds like he's reveling in being the "bad guy", trolling for media attention and clicks.
We have all been trolled.
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.
Ventures that feel the need to state "It's completely legal! my lawyers checked" are usually a bad idea.
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.
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.
Because a competitor site did it. Check out this blog 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.
According to the article, Hunter Moore also ran that site as well.
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.
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.
I'm guessing he doesn't read the news.
Cue The Dark Knight "hero we deserve" quote.
Off the top of my head:
I wouldn't expect much backlash from anonymous on this one.
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.
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.
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.
Then the site owner might find that legal safe harbors are not the only kind of harbor he should have been concerned with.
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."
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.
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 . 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.