16
   

A Troll is Outed

 
 
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:32 am
http://gawker.com/5950981

Discuss.

Joe(what a world)Nation
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:43 am
@Joe Nation,

Too long to read. But troubling and disgusting.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:57 am
@McTag,
If you don't read it to the end, you miss the good stuff.

What Reddit's position is and what they've done. (ban Gawker. Yeah, that'll work)

and who this guy is in what we others call "real life"

Joe(tis funny, it's never the victims who think racism, sexism and soft porn are funny.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Yahto
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 07:09 am
@Joe Nation,
There are dark corners everywhere in the world, even in the digital world. It doesn't surprise me a least bit, however, what was unexpected is that he didn't throw a fit.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 08:17 am
@Yahto,
There is something about being completely trapped that calms the trapped one down.

Joe(he did plead a little)Nation
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 08:27 am
@Joe Nation,
I feel pretty sad for his once nineteen year old step daughter.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 09:08 am
It might have been worse. He could have been born twins or triplets.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 03:52 pm
When I read about something like that, I'm always intrigued by the motivation. What in hell (apt phrase) makes anyone act that way? How does one get satisfaction -- maybe even a thrill? -- out of being a total asshole? It makes no sense to me.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:21 pm
@Joe Nation,
I'm interested to know how "Violentacrez" (now that his real identity has been exposed) stands with the law.
What laws in the US apply to posting sexual images of under-aged children online?
Could "Violentacrez"'s right to publish be protected by the first amendment or some other law?
Or could he & Reddit be prosecuted for publishing such images?

Quote:
.... And with Jailbait,Violentacrez decided to create a safe space for people sexually attracted to underage girls to share their photo stashes. .... Users posted snapshots of tween and teenage girls, often in bikinis and skirts. Many of these were lifted from their Facebook accounts .....

Violentacrez and his fellow moderators worked hard to make sure every girl on jailbait was underage, diligently deleting any photos whose subjects seemed older than 16 or 17. Violentacrez himself posted hundreds of photos. Jailbait became one of Reddit's most popular subreddits, generating millions of pageviews a month. "Jailbait" was for a time the second biggest search term bringing traffic to Reddit, after "Reddit." Eventually, Jailbait landed on CNN, where Anderson Cooper called out Reddit for hosting it, and Violentacrez for creating it. The ensuing outcry led Reddit administrators to reluctantly ban Jailbait, and all sexually suggestive content featuring minors.


Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:35 pm
@msolga,
Judging from that quote, it doesn't sound as though he posted anything that could actually be considered pornographic. I doubt that there are any laws against publishing pictures of 16 and 17 year old girls wearing bathing suits or street clothes, no matter how suggestive these photos might seem to be. If anyone tried to bring such a charge, the obvious defense would be to say that anything salacious is in the eye of the beholder and is unintentional. The girls in the photos might (or might not) have the basis for a civil suit claiming invasion of privacy inasmuch as they did not authorize posting of the photos anywhere except where they had been posted by the subjects themselves.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:39 pm
@msolga,
Not likely, as he took the majority of these photos from social media and most of these people put up their own pictures. Stalking maybe.
Privacy laws are lax in the US. Just the other day, I was sent a form by an American company looking for employment info on a past employee. The form not only had this man's social insurance no. on it, but also asked all kinds of question we could be sued for answering under Canadian law.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 05:50 pm
Thanks for your responses, Andrew & Ceili.
Interesting.
It is hard to know how explicit the photographs were without having seen them. And perhaps not all of them were lifted from facebook, etc. ? I don't know.

Quote:
I doubt that there are any laws against publishing pictures of 16 and 17 year old girls wearing bathing suits or street clothes, no matter how suggestive these photos might seem to be.

According to the article he deliberately chose images of children younger that 16 or 17.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:03 pm
@msolga,
Maybe he's a faux troll just funning at the edge?

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:11 pm
@ossobuco,
I've no idea, osso.
I took the article on face value.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:18 pm
@ossobuco,
Nope, he's a really well known troll.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 06:19 pm
@Ceili,
Thanks. Ugh.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 07:02 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

. . . The form not only had this man's social insurance no. on it, but also asked all kinds of question we could be sued for answering under Canadian law.


This is true in the US as well, but possibly not to the same extent. The only times I know of where the prior employer is actually protected is in the case of a CDL driver. Even then, the form has a block for the signed permission of the driver to give out the information. Naturely, if the driver won't sign, the form isn't sent, and the job goes to someone else.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 07:06 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
the form has a block for the signed permission of the driver to give out the information.


that isn't accepted here
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 07:11 pm
@ehBeth,
Fantastic. Do you ever get caught in the middle? If you have such a required form, and the prior employer is required to answer honestly, it sounds like a problem.

Only a problem if the new employer is required to get the information from the old, of course.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2012 07:19 pm
@roger,
In Canada, you can ask if you'd rehire, but not specifics. Many companies will only admit to a person having worked there. If you give a bad reference, you can be sued. If you give a good reference and the person sucks, you can be sued or busted by the feds. I phoned the company and told them this. They were very dismissive about the info I was giving them about our laws. I'm seriously thinking about calling the F.O.I.P police. You can't send an address, S.I.N number or any personal info beyond name and generalities. I can't give any info on past bad behavior at all. Mind you, they were very rude to begin with, so I'm thinking **** 'em. I just don't want to screw the past employee...
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Troll is Outed
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 09:24:33