Next time you think we have a troll problem at SJ, read this

You're right. I'm out of focus here. This thread is moving fast and everything's spinning and I haven't even had my first drink of the night yet. I'll take a break and come back with a point.

I'm still uncomfortable with this whole thing.

 

And Verse, that's up to Reddit's management, how much it wants to expose itself to lawsuits and potentially ruinous publicity. In any event, I'm not going to lose sleep over a troll, someone dedicated to making others uncomfortable or unable to have regular discussion, being exposed.

 

I can say I feel clean and refreshed, because I have never set so much as even an Interweb foot on Reddit.

 

Reddit could use some Starman justice.

 

Yeah, no shit.

 

Let's see if I can break down my point of view in a more cogent fashion. First, let's establish a few things:

• Violentacrez was operating within the boundaries of acceptable conduct on Reddit, even as his posting history was despicable by the standards of normal human beings.

• Adrian Chen is a member of Reddit but not in any position of power at the website.

• Reddit has a policy against outing. This policy is integral to the continued existence of Reddit, according to its users and moderators.

• Violentacrez posted and hosted photos of women who had no idea the photos existed in some cases and had been distributed in all cases.

• Violentacrez did not post illegal content and helped moderate and delete illegal content.

• Violentacrez is a creepy motherfucker.

OK, I think we can agree with all of those things. The first two points nullify my analogy from earlier to this site.

My problem mostly stems from Chen and Gawker thinking they can decide what should and shouldn't go on another, substantially more popular website, one that isn't breaking laws. One of the great things about the Internet is the freedom of choice. You can avoid places you don't like with remarkable ease. But here comes Gawker with its moral superiority — keeping in mind how shitty and mean some of the crap posted on Gawker is — to tell Reddit, a far more trafficked site, that one of its most popular posters is a bad person. And on top of that, he's such a bad person he deserves public shaming for non-crimes he commits in private under a pseudonym.

So here's an analogy to this site that I think might work: Jason Whitlock attempted (and failed) to out Double Down. Why? Whitlock was imposing his own code on a respected poster. Whitlock knows the culture of SportsJournalists.com in the same way Chen does. I assume Whitlock is no longer invited to the party in the same way Chen presumably was banned from Reddit.

That's all well and good. But what if Whitlock had correctly identified DD? I think we can agree DD is a good-to-great poster, but Whitlock obviously felt DD was taking cheap shots at him and doing other things unbefitting of the Internet by the Whitlock code. Yes, there's a difference between DD's posting history and Violentacrez's posting history, but it mostly exists based on social communal mores. Reddit liked Violentacrez. This is a key point, I think.

Gawker has every right to expose someone on another site for being what they deem as a shitty person. Whitlock has that right, too. But it doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to do. Exposing the seedy underbelly of Reddit doesn't require potentially ruining a guy's life.

 

And, yes, I know. In the spirit of Reddit: tl;dr

 

Vera, I appreciate the effort and the explanation, but I think you're whiffing on the kind of person we are dealing with. First off, I'm not sure that I would agree he posted no illegal information. Are the creepshots of underage girls legal? I don't know. I think some of the stuff is pretty questionable.

And you are really underselling the "social mores" aspect as if the guy is just doing stuff that isn't quite acceptable yet but will be.

 

Brustch was acting legally, and so was Chen.

 

Agreed. This is a guy who posts photos of dead teenage girls just to get a reaction. I think even Gawker is on safe ground passing judgment on this asshole.

 

I rephrased "social mores" to "communal mores." The filth Violentacrez posted never will be acceptable on Gawker, just as the takes Double Down posted presumably never would be acceptable on The Jason Whitlock Internet Web Site Emporium of Awfulness. But Violentacrez's filth and Double Down's intelligent vitriol are welcome and even beloved at the places they are spewed.

(Note: Double Down is one of my favorite posters on this site. I think he knows that, and I hope he understands that I'm using him as an example for rhetorical purposes.)

 

Actually, better question:
Is it an intellectual property issue? If I post a picture on Facebook, don't I still own that picture?