> Jill became hysterical, repeating, "Oh, my God. No. Oh, my God. No."
This is, obviously, the reaction of someone who fears repercussions from others. And this is for completely harmless acts (taking nude photos), which almost everyone does these days. And with good reason. Society in the US clamps down hard on people (women to a greater degree, but also men) who have the audacity to express their sexuality. That this expression was in no way intended for the public, makes no difference. Once it becomes publicly known, you are a slut (or a pervert) and harshly punished. Perverts are no good, and sluts are worse. This cultural norm is the only reason this type of shaming has any effect.
But really, we are all sluts and perverts. A good first step would be to go after the psychopaths who run campaigns like these. A good second step would be to abolish the cultural norms that allow sexuality and nudity to be used as a weapon.
If you look at "alternative" sexual societies like swingers' clubs or BDSM communities, you will often hear the word "pervert" or "slut" used in a positive sense, the way homosexuals are reclaiming literally every derogatory term used about their sexual identity. Most people in these communities are very aware and careful regarding the reactions of outside society if it became known what they do in their bedrooms, but the capability to make them feel bad about themselves for acts of nudity or sex is often completely absent.
1. A prudish culture in which women are fired for the slightest revealing photo.
2. A litigious culture in which courts and police are heavily relied on to solve disputes.
3. An infantilized youth remaining under the wings of their parents long after reaching adulthood.
4. A burgeoning labyrinth of overly-specific laws being added to regularly in response to each perceived "crisis".
That's what the courts ARE FOR. Are you saying you'd prefer to live in the world where Charlotte flies to Sacramento and calls Hunter out at high noon in a cowboy hat? Because it seems fairly clear the "negotiation" option was a complete non-starter.
Edit: To be clear, I'm aware that some of these victims lost their jobs. I did not mean to suggest there was no harm done. However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain.
You and I have our beliefs about sexuality, and perhaps any one woman showing up on this website could elect to ignore it. But it's quite clear that Hunter was causing women real harm & suffering, regardless what your or my beliefs about sexuality are. Particularly considering he got people fired. I don't know about you, but someone getting me fired is not some little joke I can ignore.
One clear indication that this is not an appropriate dispute (...) is the fact that she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers
I disagree. I believe that's a clear indication the legal system is currently catching up to technology, not that the law doesn't belong on the internet.
Perhaps we need to look at this from a different angle. Why can employers fire me for having a naked picture taken? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault firing as well.
I think the comment was talking about changing social attitude more than anything else if I read it right. If we make it normal to have nude pictures on the Internet, then these sites will automatically lose steam.
Why can people choose not to purchase from Chick-a-Fil because they dislike the anti-gay opinions of the owner? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault failure to purchase chicken as well.
Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions.
BS. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of several criteria. Government agencies certainly cannot refuse service on arbitrary criteria, and minority groups throughout history have had to resort to the law due to the fact that oppressive majorities might be unfairly boycotting them.
There is no such thing as a "free society"; there are societies with different values and with different criteria as to who are fairly and unfairly victimized.
For the record, in most civilized countries at-will employment where you can be fired on the spot without compensation for no justification is considered to be a gross undermining of worker's rights.
Except employers are not free to hire and fire, even in weird societies where that's seen as a good idea. They're not allowed to discriminate against people with protected characteristics.
In this situation it's possible the employers are vulnerable to sexual discrimination lawsuit, because revenge porn websites target mostly women.
This guy wasn't posting these pictures annonymously, he was including personal and identifying information so that it would come up if you searched their name and even their facebook timeline. You should also look past the daughter in the story, what about the teacher who was fired on the spot when the photo was posted? Not only was she fired, but she would be unable to work in that field ever again. How could she possibly ignore what happened?
Ah, so his villainy is rendered less villainous by this fact? His villainy is somehow not his responsibility, because his impact was indirect?
Or do you mean to suggest that the wronged women, instead of pursuing the man who targeted them EXPRESSLY TO RUIN THEIR LIVES should instead undertake the relatively trivial task of changing the moral values of an entire nation?
There is no reason a boss can fire you because of your private life.
But none of that changes that Moore and his henchmen are the primary villains here. Behind bars is the only place for that kind of malice.
Someone seeing your naked photo should never, ever be an acceptable reason for firing someone, no matter where you work. The original article discusses on how to prevent the naked photos from being spread; but we also need to fix this issue as well.
Courts exist, among other things, to solve such relatively petty disputes as whether you were ripped off over a £50 TV, or whether people moved a fence an inch. The magnitude of harm here is clearly greater; I've yet to hear of someone otherwise stable being driven to suicide over a TV.
It's not sufficient support for the idea that the courts shouldn't address something to say that someone had to do some legal manoeuvring because it's not specifically covered yet.
> However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain.
Why should that make a difference? He clearly was aware of the harm he was contributing to, in a fairly major way, and continued with it anyway. There was a clear line of cause and effect from his actions to the harm, that he was aware of. That this line was social rather than physical in nature strike me as an arbitrary distinction. If I put a bounty out on you, the line of effect is social rather than physical in nature as well; I didn't pull the trigger, it's just that I was talking to a greedy person who valued money more than your life.
If you're willing to ruin someone's life like that, you do not deserve to live in a way where you're capable of doing so.
The courts have apparently interpreted it broadly enough to bar people from getting an injunction requiring the site to take down the offending content when they would otherwise have a basis for doing so. There's a whole bunch of entirely legal online extortion businesses built on this simple fact; the most prominent lawyer fighting these revenge porn sites - Marc Randazza, who advised her - is actually doing so on behalf of one of them and so has incentive to preserve Section 230 of the CDA.
They did lose their job directly due to the actions of the villains. It was an organized attack to ruin some innocent person's life. The prudish society provides them the means, but let's not forget that these people are pure evil. There's not the slightest excuse or reason for what they did, other than pure, unadulterated malice. The nudity makes it easy, but when that tool is taken away from them (it certainly should), there are still plenty of other ways they can discredit, slander or ruin someone.
I call shenanigans on this and all the other nonsense anti-American rants.
Nobody likes private pictures of them posted without their consent, but in countries were topless sunbathing is the norm and nudity is a non-issue, women would be upset as in being pissed off, not as in "oh my god, my life is ruined".
You are being too simplistic with this nude beach stuff. What occurs on a nude beach or to people that attend such a beach may be different from what happens to individuals away from such beaches even in the same country.
You really think that in the rest of the free world being topless is confined to certain types of people on "nude beaches"?
Still, nobody anywhere in the world would appreciate complete strangers spreading those (or any other) pictures of them.
There are shame sites causing pains for girls here, too, but we have no such culture of which your speak where nude pictures is some big deal (once out of high school.)
Perhaps follow up with bank and medical records?
Or do you feel that privacy only applies to things other than nudity?
Oh and I'm sure you wouldn't mind hundreds of people contacting you and your employer and calling you all sorts of names.
Just like the good old days where the rape victims were the ones at fault.
Society has a lot to blame for here as well.
I thought the problem was people calling (i.e. harassing) the school about her?
I would hope they gave her some time to deal with things, then let her back in her job.
No. People calling was problem of the school. Treating her like perpetrator was her problem and her workplace was at fault there.
Don't get your hopes up. Everyone has a lot to say on this topic and why 'Our culture is bad. Everyone should grow up - having your nudes online is not a big deal', but they'll never deliver themselves.
I'm glad the FBI & judicial system appear to have been effective in this story. The fundamental reason this sort of thing happens (again, in my eyes) is because the internet is still a pretty lawless place; that's the root of what happened here.
No, but it would be an easy weapon to take away from them.
I don't know, can't really see the slut-shaming working to this extent here in the UK, let alone other parts of Europe. Hell, Italy had an ex-pornstar as a member of parliament for some time IIRC.
I find the whole thing baffling. I find it genuinely difficult to understand how any actor was anything but sympathetic to the women in the story. It brings a whole new light to the idea of 'revenge porn', which I had always assumed was just a way to cause someone some embarrassment and would be quickly forgotten.
But I do find it entertaining that you believe there are no Italian misogynists that would use nude photos or videos against a woman. It's not naive at all. :)
Who said that? Certainly not me. I wonder where you read that?
I said they would find it hard for slut shaming to work to the same extent - i.e. someone's life ruined over a stolen picture.
Culture can move very fast. In 100 years if there's anyone close enough to look at us as people rather than precursors they will be revolted that we ate dead animal flesh and stuck children in rooms eight hours a day five days a week and sent them back if they left.
I'd say the same about the first legal change to allow gay sexual relationships. If you'd conducted a poll back in 1967 and asked people whether they think homosexuality should be legal, they would have told you absolutely not. The fact that the law changed and it didn't start raining frogs from the sky convinced people afterwards that it was okay.
Much as it pains me to praise politicians, they are sometimes ahead of the public on issues and take seriously some kind of moral commitment to make society fairer even when it is unpopular.
.. as expressed via the newspapers and (some) television. It's certainly true that for a politician to do the right thing, it's necessary for them to go against "public opinion", but I'm not sure that "public opinion" and the actual opinions of members of the public are the same thing. In fact, the ban was introduced in 2007, by which point only 25% of people smoked, down from over 40% of men and 35% of women in 1980 and over 60% of men and 40% of women in 1960. It's just as easy to argue that the ban was only introduced once smokers were in a clear and shrinking minority, hardly an example of great political bravery. EDIT: a poll from 2005 shows 73% of people in support of a ban when given a yes/no choice, although this declines if compromise options such as legally enforced no-smoking areas are offered: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/43
If you believed the newspapers, you'd think that most British people want to withdraw from the EU (despite voting in favour of the common market in the only referendum we ever had on it), bring back capital punishment (despite it being long gone and there having been no popular campaign for its return) and deport a couple of million people for being insufficiently British (despite the fact that nobody has ever voted for this in large enough numbers to even start thinking about it; the Tories are only against increases in immigration and even this moderation of their past stance was only enough to get them into government via a coalition).
Without wishing to romanticise the good sense of the electorate, generally most people are more reasonable than the media makes them look. I think that's compatible with the notion that politicians follow the prevailing culture (possibly because, via doorstep campaigning and MP's surgeries they actually speak to real people every now and then) and it's the media that makes things look otherwise. It's true that going against the media does require some bravery on the part of our politicians, but I think past experience shows that when the politicians are in touch with what people actually want, it's the media that has to change course and adapt its view of "public opinion" to reality.
"Incompatible"? No, those things are perfectly compatible. Don't believe everything the fundamentalists feed you. Christianity is not first and foremost about the sex stuff; it's about the love stuff. True, gay marriage is new and controversial, but contraception has not been much of a problem outside the Vatican.
Also, you make it sound like Ireland is somehow very progressive, but they're actually extremely conservative on these things. There are other countries that were Christian long before the 800s that have no problem with any of these things, nor with euthanasia or abortion (within reasonable limits).
And in these cases, the difference is social context and the hysteria surrounding sexuality and nudity, not the likes of Hunter Moore.
While we need to fix the first problem I think (cultural taboo about nudity) what sleezebag did is still wrong, and not fixing the first problem.
No, the people who make me angry are the ones like that principal.
What I'm surprised about is that there did not seem to be any consequence to his lack of response to a DMCA takedown notice. Is this not enforceable short of a lawsuit?
Absolutely. The people who fire someone over simply having some photo online, carry part of the blame here.
But the harassers themselves should all be in prison, and pay their victims for lost income and emotional damage. They are the true evil here, and should be treated as such.
If I may recall the relevant operetta on HN:
Objection! What about war?
Though war may seem a bloody curse
It is a blessing in reverse
When canon roar -- Both rich and poor
By danger are united!
(Till every wrong is righted!)
Philosophers make evident
The point that I have cited
'Tis war makes equal -- as it were --
The noble and the commoner
Thus war improves relations!
(Pangloss tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible world, because it was created by an all powerful/knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
>it would be like saying war is really a good thing because of the (possibly good) ending side effects.
War can be a good thing for that very reason. It can be a form of politics that is used to avoid further and larger loss of life. However, this only works if the war is not drawn out.
Art of War (and relevant analyses) are good references on this topic. Art of War specifically talks about avoiding long and drawn out campaigns, and let's just say that a few recent examples come to mind.
He makes Sean Parker look like a respectable businessman. That's how bad he is.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I agree; this country needs to grow the fuck up.
Think about it: why can European TV channels show nudity (and sometimes even porn) during daytime? Is it because Europeans are more "grown up" or is it because they have more sane, liberal values and worldviews?
After the 1980s, the anti-intellectual undercurrent (that exists in all societies) metastasized through the resurgent conservative movement (Reagan Revolution). Combine this with economic forces that are (through no fault of their own, for many people) delaying adolescence into what used to be full adulthood and you get a stupid, immature, brain-dead culture.
Which is not to say that view is right, but it illustrates that throwing around a term like "cultural degradation" at all can be quite problematic.
Moore is wrong for not removing images which are contested to be authorized by the subjects, but further; if he doesn't 1000s of others will and do; there are many of these sites a quick Google search shows. He just has a bigger mouth in the press.
In short; get used to this happening to your pics and indeed, I do no believe Moore would have success in the EU. He would have to hire porn actresses to play girls and boys doin' it behind/in the church and make it look real to get any kind of 'oh my word!' feedback here. In that from a limited audience as there are not that many believers anymore.
But no matter what the cultural mores are, it still needs to be very illegal, and these psychos need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And if the law doesn't extend far enough to put them behind bars, the law needs to be changed to stop this.
And nice derailing into "men are hurt by society toooooo!!!" Perverts aren't good, and these days they're called rapists. And there are a lot of them. But maybe you think rape/sexual assault only happens in dark alleys the woman probably shouldn't have been walking down anyway..
How can the word "slut" be considered a slur in a sex-positive society?
Now, perhaps your point is that it is sex-positive, but only for men. The inequity of sex-acceptability is this: men have their status increased by the act of sex, and women have their status decreased by the act of sex. (Even this is problematic, but it works in general.)
The question is this: is the right answer to normalize having sex with multiple partners so that the woman's status is not decreased by sexual activity, or is it to decrease the man's status by not being constrained to a monogamous relationship?
Consider the gay male culture: within the culture, having sex is normalized -- it does not decrease one's status to have had sex with just about anyone. (this is problematized by AIDS, but stick with me.) A culture of sex-positivity may look like this: yes, it's highly sexualized, but within the culture there isn't a taboo of sex.
A sex-negative culture, on the other hand, places shame on the participants of sex except within rigid boundaries. Is this better than sex-positivity? I argue no.
The US culture, with respects to women, is heavily sexualized but isn't sex-positive.
Yes, the USA is sex-negative. Some examples: People are afraid to talk about sex, even with their children. It is not uncommon for young adults to be afraid of having sex because of the reactions of their parents. Many grownups have trouble expressing their sexual preferences, and hence go decades without being sexually fulfilled, even when married. Sex education in schools meets strong opposition in many places due to the fear of sexuality, with the consequence of teen pregnancies and rampant STIs. Then there's this post, where people lose their jobs because a naked photo of them showed up the internet. Women who publicly express their sexuality in any form are shamed, outside of a few limited contexts such as seedy nightclubs and advertising. I think these exampes are sufficient to define and demonstrate the extent of the problem.
And yes, men are in fact also affected by this sex-negativity. Male sexuality is considered dangerous, of which your instinctive derailment into the crime of rape is a perfect example. This is an area where there is a surprising level of symmetry between the genders. Men are allowed more leeway in their choices and numbers of sex partners, but that's about it.
When it comes to sexual expression outside of the norm, which is the preference for broad shoulders, big tits and missionary or doggy-style pounding, the pervert/slut label is thrown around all the time in contexts where it shouldn't be used. Oral sex was considered a perversion only two decades ago. Anal sex still is, to an extent. Get beyond that into the realm of nonmonogamy, fetishism or bondage, which are defining elements of many couples' sex lives, and all bets are off.
And that's not sex-negative?
What worries me more deeply is how society provides people like Moore with the ammunition they need to terrorize women. One victim complained that she would lose her children over the nude pictures. Even if they were actually of her, why does someone have to fear the government taking away their kids simply because they chose to appear naked in front of a camera? That doesn't make someone a bad parent. It doesn't really make them anything.
Why do we make people fear the govenrment AND their exes AND crazy people on the Internet? As society, we're doing a piss-poor job providing protection to people that need it.
I also find it extremely disturbing that someone would lose their job over this. I don't know many other democratic countries how would have this immediate reaction, and would certainly at least investigate first.
I assume the technician was coincidentally also a salesman. ;-) "Tough to remove"? What a load of crap.
> Researchers at Core Security Technologies demonstrated the techniques at CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver earlier this month, compromising one virtual machine running Windows and another running OpenBSD.
The attack relies on modifying the BIOS of the target machine; startup firmware that is booted from a chip on the motherboard. Anybody wishing to use this kind of exploit in the wild would need to already have low-level access to the machine in order to make such a change. As the BIOS code is executed every time the system starts up, even if disks are wiped or replaced, this presents an attractive proposition for hackers.
I agree that it's unlikely, but it's nice to see someone actually saying "nuke it"(although "Nuke it" should probably be just "wipe the drive and re-install"), rather than fiddling around with combofix and malwarebytes.
Don't forget that some people don't have OS discs, they have a "Host Protected Area" partition. Maybe rootkits and malware can infect that?
If you can infect the BIOS, it seems pretty likely. On the other hand, if you can infect the BIOS, why bother?
Therefore, a hacker can write a program to replace your BIOS with something that looks completely the same, except it also reinfects your computer each month.
This isn't paranoia. It's inevitable. I'm surprised it's not more well-known.
Wait for Snowden's next leak.
Cost $1 for two discs, or $10 for two flash drives < Cost of a new computer
Even better, since you seem to be reformatting quite often, once you have the computer configured how you want, create a clone of the hard drive. That way you don't have to manually do everything over again.
And they probably haven't even created the drivers disk let alone a restore disk. And what sort of idiot downloads an ISO onto a virus riddled machine?
This is often so easily dismissed on HN as "my product, my rules", when it is actually a political statement of support for, or at least surrender to, the notion that nudity is something wrong and shameful, especially for women.
You wanna solve the problem, start by cleaning up your own act, and take the anti-"porn" provisions out of your TOS, and stop crucifying your users for posting ordinary holiday snapshots because, "boobies".
I think Paul Graham's essay about mental fashions is a great summary of this type of mental stretching, but most people fall far from the philosophic ideal of being able to see society's unwritten rules from a distance.
Also I don't understand why people like Moore haven't been sued into the ground for profiting from copyright violation.
(edit: I mean other than the whole upfront cost aspect, but given how frickin' insane copyright penalties are, you would think some or other lawyer would take it on a no-win no-fee basis.)
It seems baffling to me that her partner would consider leaving her, but the article says it was a concern.
Or sometimes people at vulnerable points in their lives are outed. Or not even outed, just plain blackmailed.
It's very easy to say "just shrug it off", but the numbers of people completing suicide (I've found 3 names in a very quick web search) shows that it's not something that people can just get over.
Clearly the behaviour of the people involved in this is abhorrent (for multiple reasons) but there has to be a point where you stop caring. Moore is not the only asshole in the story by a long stretch. He might not even be the worst.
I mean, if the boyfriend thought about leaving her for a second then he's not worth worrying about, he's an asshole. Whoever fired the kindergarten teacher likewise. The real story is not the 'revenge porn', it's the morons that are so upset by it that they fire someone, or that anyone would take kids away from their mother over it, or really any of the societal bullshit about nudity.
edit: And seriously, some professions don't like taking people who have been naked on the internet? Those professions need to grow the f*ck up.
That would make him pretty worthless.
It doesn't matter if you're going to break up with her the next day or you hate the very sight of the woman, it's basic human decency.
I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here.
However, there is a clear breach on privacy rights, and I'm scared no one in the article or here seems to think that this is the reason why Moore should be prosecuted. The author says than more than half of her contacts are on the site against their own will, for something that is private to their life. That alone is not OK. Copyrights have nothing to do here.
This is factually incorrect.
There is copyright on any and all creations unless explicitly licensed otherwise. This is under the Berne convention. In the US you can register copyrighted works but only to access the higher punitive damages for infringement. It became the law in the US that all works were auto-copyrighted when the Berne convention was signed into law.
>> Copyrights have nothing to do here.
They do, it's stolen* works that are not licensed to the site, and as the escalation of penalties under copyright law has been so huge recently, it may be the best weapon to take these people down.
*(I don't usually like the use of the word "steal" or "stolen" in conjunction with copyright, but where it involves actually breaking in to people's mail accounts and taking things I don't necessarily think it's inaccurate)
Of course I know the answers. I'm just sad about that.
In the case in question the picture wasn't even published or sent to another individual, so various computer breaking-and-entering laws would also apply to the perp that did that, but for people that get stuff from them and re-publish... I guess we could have a digital equivalent of a handling stolen goods charge, but copyright seems as good a law as any - there is no permission to copy.
Consider a very similar hypothetical site, is-anyone-up-for-busting-corruption.com. Much like isanyoneup.com, this site also posts media of people engaging in actions they do not wish to be seen engaged in. When media is posted, it is accompanied by contact information for the employers of the people involved, and the desire is expressed for those people to be fired and their lives ruined.
I can't say I like the precedent the attacks on Hunter Moore are setting, even if he is a great big jerk.
Maybe it's just me, but leaving someone to mope seems a little like you're treating them as more a child than an adult.
If this happened to my kid, I would also completely take over, and want them involved as little as possible. Yes, even if they were 24.
I think I view enabling a child's independence as a parent's most important job, particularly in light of the often random and occasionally capricious nature of death.
Your argument is a little like saying that the best time to teach first aid is when your kid has a gaping chest wound.
After all, it's their life, and any decisions on how/wether to proceed and what to avoid are completely theirs to make - they may take advice from parents, or they also may not want their parents to have any say whatsover in how to handle it.
Why do we allow that kind if situation to persist? What can be done about it?
You can't just assume the suer is correct and deserves protection.
There is a right for someone to face their accuser, and you can't make them pay just because they were accused.
For the money issue there are charities that do help. Regarding the name part perhaps a judge can seal or redact the record?
And it looks like charity really can't fill the void in this case.
Definitely a worthy cause to donate to.
I see a number of advantages to de facto anarchy, Hunter Moore getting offed is only one.
I think there will be negatives in that world too. The whole thing is too big for me to even reflect on. I'm not a cyberpunk.
you reside nt roll in gex per t?
This doesn't make sense, in what other language besides English would this be parsable?
How was Black Lotus blocking assets (pages, images) on Moore's website? And why was a security company he hired(?) working against him?
I'm not familiar with Black Lotus, but looking at their page for http://www.blacklotus.net/protect/protection-for-gear suggests that they basically act as a proxy for a customer's service, preventing malicious traffic from burdening the server. Because whatever goes in or out must pass through them first, they can decide not to allow certain things out if they are not comfortable with it.
And people wonder why death threats on the internet is not taken serious by the police. If the victims of death threat do not care, then the police won't. The result is that death threats then become normal on online forums, and real death threats gets ignored.
I searched for huntermoore in twitter and I came across a nsfw picture of a man trying to cut his testicles. https://twitter.com/search?q=huntermoore&src=typd
twitter's safe picture algorithm is a fail in my experience, it fails to tag these gross gore and nsfw pictures but it tags all the pictures uploaded by fernando alonso formula 1 racer as nsfw by default, I never understood that.
click on any twitpicture and you will get a warning.
make sure you have your profile set to not view tagged pictures by default, "tweet media settings"
I always found this annoying being a fernando alonso fan.
Would it be to much trouble for these people to learn how to use the DMCA properly? Obviously he is not going to turn his own web site off.
Sadly, we're all having to become lawyers now.
It's basically the Shawn Parker story. No real accomplishments, but active participation in the party scene leads to high status. If this current incarnation of the VC-funded bubble hasn't crashed, in 3 years he'll be part of the "tech" in-crowd and people here will be discussing his new venture capital fund.
I, for one, will never take investment from any VC firm that employs Hunter Moore as a Managing Partner.
Yeah, I just had a look at his Twitter, there's a lot of girls sending him naked pictures and telling him how much they love him, and a bunch of sycophants avidly defending him (in a highly misogynistic manner, natürlich).
Some women just have really broken status filters. They're attracted to guys with high status, and ignore the fact that he achieved that through evil means. It's the same thing that causes women to fall in love with convicted murderers serving life sentences.
From his vice interview:
A lot of people send the naked pictures to get jobs in the adult industry, too. But the one thing they have in common is they’re fucking retarded. That’s the similarity. They’re just stupid people. All I really do is take advantage of them; it’s just them being fucking retarded.
> I, for one, will never take investment from any VC firm that employs Hunter Moore as a Managing Partner.
Surely, there's no chance of that actually happening? He's going to end up bankrupt behind bars, right?