It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reddit blocks Gawker in defence of its right to be really, really creepy

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Links from the Gawker network of sites have been banned from the Reddit US Politics sub-forum, r/politics. The ban was instigated by a moderator after a Gawker.com journalist, Adrian Chen, apparently threatened to expose the real-life identity of redditor violentacrez, the creator of r/jailbait and r/creepshots. These two sub-forums, or "subreddits" were dedicated to, respectively, sexualised pictures of under-18s and sexualised pictures of women – frequently also under-age – taken in public without their knowledge or consent.


I am not a huge fan of Chen, and sort of hate a lot about Gawker (though at least half the threads I start seem to come from them, the bastards). That being said, I do support the guy for taking a stance against neckbeards posting photos of underage girls without (even with) their consent. I'm confident I'm going to be met with criticism here, because there seem to be some weirdos on ATS (the 'she's asking for it brigade' comes to mind). Now I don't support giving out personal information, but I do think there are dark places of the interwebs that occasionally need a flashlight shined on them lest they continue to grow.


The ability of any redditor to create any subreddit they want, without the site's administration getting involved, is fiercely protected by the community, and that has led to subreddits focused on topics ranging from marijuana use and My-Little-Pony-themed pornography to beating women (also moderated by violentacrez) and, until yesterday, creepshots.


Look, I'm all for free speech. I think you should be allowed to say pretty much anything online short of threatening someone. I will say again I don't condone giving out the creeps name, but seriously what a creep. A sub forum devoted to beating women? A sub forum devoted to 'creepshots' of young girls? What a sad ****.

The moderators over at reddit say:


Reddit prides itself on having a subreddit for everything, and no matter how much anyone may disapprove of what another user subscribes to, that is never a reason to threaten them.


So my question to you dear reader, is there a reason to threaten scumballs? I suppose I believe you should be allowed to discuss whatever you want. The thing that bothers me is the posting of pictures. Now on the flip side if I'm at the beach taking pictures of my dog and some underage girl gets in the photo in a bikini, I don't want that to be a crime. But then if I take that picture and sexualize it and post it online for a bunch of fat virgins to 'have fun with' perhaps I would deserve a talking to.

Either way I think it hypocritical to say that things that are publicly viewed (as in girls in bikinis etc.) is OK, then bitch when someone finds your name because you are a stupid **** and use the same name for all your online accounts. This in turn makes me a hypocrite for saying it's wrong to.....

Thoughts?

Link




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
In my opinion, Reddit is doing a good job. Anonymity is important on the internet. Policing the internet would be detrimental to the ideal of free speech, if we didn't have internet now, the world would be a much worse of a place. News spreads fast, hate spreads fast, but so does love and empathy. The atrocities of the world wouldn't come to light. If you start censoring the internet, eventually it'll tumble and roll until free speech is lost.

The guy is sick, at least to me, but if he really does something horrible, he will get what's coming to him. Everyone I've known in person or by name, who has done horrible things, always gets whats coming to them.

I think they're not naked so I dont think its illegal, but its creepy as hell. Exposing him would set an example to expose everyone someone deemed as "sick", i put sick in quotations as there are always variations as to what people see as sick.

I like watching gore, gore with news stories as I believe it portrays things as they really are. I'm not saying i enjoy death, but I do like knowing the truth, actions, consequences, brutality, revenge, and human nature in general. But gore is illegal in many countries, and deemed also as "sick". Should i be exposed for wanting to see how the world really works? Cause its certainly not rainbows and fairy dust.

Evil begets evil. People always gets what they deserve. So I say reddit made the right choice. If the guy really does something horrible like child pornography, rape or sexual assault,etc, I'm sure he'll be in even deeper #. So no point in threatening to expose his identity, I'm sure Chen is not a "good" person either.

And hey....if the woman is into getting beaten...okay then...thats your life choice. Same thing if a man was into getting beaten by a woman. Creep shots.....dunno even what to say about that....in a perfect society this wouldn't happen, but he's not doing anything illegal.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Svipdagr because: added some stuff



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
LOL

reddit just blocks when people actually find out what kind of stuff gets posted there.....check out r/WTF and r/Imgoingtohellforthis



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I sure don't agree with censorship and I'd also point out that the outside world might disagree with what we call illegal or improper. Likewise...I KNOW what some of the rest of the world considers normal we absolutely call a crime.

So, the net isn't ours to censor when it comes right down to it. On the other hand, crime is crime and we seem to have LOTS of cops lately. We have armed enforcement units at the IRS, Social Security and wasn't NOAA going to be getting weapons at one point??

So where are the computer geeks working in long banks of computers to trap, trace and tag the scumbags that ARE in outright violation of criminal law? There are sure plenty of them and all over the U.S. It's well within U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction if they'd focus on what's important to enforce for awhile instead of being the molesters themselves with the TSA and other roving search teams these days. Just my thoughts...

The criminals are ..right...there...for...the..taking!



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It's way too dangerous to do that. No matter what you do, who you are, or how skilled you are.....everyone leaves traces, if someone wants to find you, they will. That's why there are white hats, black hats, even grey hat hackers. Of course you could always do your best to hide yourself, do the damage, and run away. But that seems never to work, as so many hackers are arrested on a daily basis, or forced to work for government agencies.

And in the end, if you do have this incriminating evidence, who are you going to send it to? How can you trust that it will be deployed? Or it will actually get coverage? Or they will actually find your information to be real, and not just falsified documents.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Taking pictures of people in public is a tricky issue, both legally and morally. I would think most of us have snapped a picture where there are people in the background. Most of us have probably snapped a funny picture of someone we thought was dorky/weird/attractive on the sly. Now the difference for me is taking pictures of girls that are obviously underage, posting it to a subforum dedicated to sexualizing it, then expecting people treat you with more respect than you treat children.

Let's say I start trolling the internet for toddler bath time. I'm sure I could find a TON of naked pictures. Fine. I don't think the parents should be in trouble for spreading child porn, but if I made a website dedicated to dirtyslutkidsneedbaths. com don't you think that's wrong? It's not hard to prove intent in this kind of situation and child pornography is not just a naked kid.

I realize that we technically have no right to privacy afforded us in public, but perhaps we should take a stance and not let a young girl trying to have a fun day at the beach become the poster child for neckbeard self gratification.

It really is a tough question, that's why I wanted to bring it here. I'm 27, but have seen girls under 18 that to me look over 20 and I thought attractive. I don't think that makes me a bad guy, but if I intentionally went out and snapped pictures of 'jailbait' girls under 18 by definition and posted them online don't you think there would be a problem? Hell some of those girls are probably 12. Maybe younger. You post a a picture of your family having fun, some sick bastard sees it, posts a picture of your daughter with a disgusting caption...

I know it's hard to know where to draw the line. I think I can draw it as a forum dedicated to underage girls in skimpy clothes. Jailbait means illegal.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join