everybody on ilx complains about reddit

http://lhote.blogspot.com/2012/10/ill-take-honest-depravity-over.html

freddie deboer weighs in. not in defense of VA (i want to make that v clear!) but against gawker/chen

i don't think he Deserves threats but i am unclear on when exactly the internet generation started assuming that their newfound and previously technologically impossible anonymity and total unaccountability was in the constitution or the bible or something

The Sermon on the Reverse Mount

xxxxp: amanda palmer's open letter to robert smith

yeah, but VA doesn't SEEM honest in his depravity with all the "Buttsharpie is not SEXUAL IN NATURE it is just pictures of disembodied young women jamming makers up their asses."

i_miss_you.jpg

first one to send me more than $18 gets a chewed on butt sharpie

ViolentAcrez is a deplorable guy. But he is *honest* in his ugly behavior.

whatevs

he is *honest* in his love of butt sharpies

i am certain this guy can raise more money because of gawker than he ever made in his old job, at least over the course of a year

chewed-on Mountain Dew Can butt sharpie

phrases i didn't need to hear this year
Mansplaining
Mommy Porn
Buttsharpies

xposts dammit

once he started talking about the new left, my eyes unfocused the screen. i agree about the gawker high-horse being pretty deep in the sewer though.

that was re: goole's link

he doesn't seem honest so much as completely fucking oblivious
The first rule of the legal world is don't explain how your collection of under eighteen upskirt photos isn't perverse by comparing it to your collection of girls putting pens in their rectums

Gawker employees acting stupid vs. Reddit defenders, pick your poison

If people are going to complain based on the worst of Gawker then buttsharpies are probably the least of Reddit's dark side.

feel like a lot of people (not itt) are confusing "free speech" with "freedom from your neighbors being grossed out and alarmed by you" the same way right-wingers often confuse it with "freedom from losing your sponsors". even that piece goole posted, which i agree w some of (i think the screenshotted tweet is p gross, for example, but what are you gonna do) spends an awful lot of time talking about chilling effects and all. i mean i'm a free speech absolutist too but that's because i don't want the state coming after me for stuff i say, not because i don't want to be held accountable by anyone for anything ever.

as for the "new york cocktail party scene"'s effects on the "new left", i dunno, i know a lot of young marxists and they ain't getting party invites from tina brown or whoever, i think we'll prob be okay.

the 'new left' thing is deeply weird. we're basically talking rad-lib media/political spin-cycle snarkers who support the dems in the end, some of whom are v. good at what they do and not try-hard at all (e.g., al3x) and some of whom are v. obnoxious but whose aspirations tend more towards the little journals of the 40s and 50s (v. much a part of the literary scene) than towards e.g. the new left review or the u.s. guardian or whatever.

ok all that said i looked at the tni article and it is hella dumb.

Reddit, as a site, thrives on its users ability to speak their minds, to create communities of their interests, and to express themselves freely, within the bounds of law. We, both as mods and as users ourselves, highly value the ability of Redditors to not expect a personal, real-world attack in the event another user disagrees with their opinions.

Please be aware that this decision was made solely based on our belief that all Redditors should being able to continue to freely express themselves without fear of personal attacks, and in no way reflect the mods personal opinion about the people on either side of the recent release of public information.

This is not a censorship issue though. The Gawker network violated a basic tenet of "internet privacy"

When did investigative journalism become doxxing?

When did Gawker become investigative journalism?

buttsh1pley

A professional actress once told me that she secretly films people on public transportation so she can later study their mannerisms and characteristics. That's a far cry from being a constantly upvoted creepshot poster but it's still icky, but can we fight being photographed or filmed in public with everyone having a camera and technology being on the side of the recorders?

In 10 years being photographed and recorded in public by strangers could be so common that this creepshot case might look really quaint, like people trying to stop filesharing by teenagers ten years ago.

think of the upskirting children

like, maybe bashar assad has a forum somewhere?

I know he's an awful guy, but dropping the tip on his blog to start Denarius Moore yesterday against Atlanta was invaluable.

ViolentAcrez is a deplorable guy. But he is *honest* in his ugly behavior.

I see arguments along these lines being made a lot lately and an I wrong for thinking it barely matters, like at all, whether or not you are ”honest” about what a piece of shit terrible person you are?

no it doesn't matter in the slightest

fuckin Freddie deboer christ

not sure what's "honest" abt hiding behind an anonymity but wvr. deboer also needs to stop making everything abt himself and how the cool kids hate him

i would just like to point out the hypocrisy of ILX being all

I got it, thank you for your mail.

Regarding the original threadlock request: my opinion is that the "cease to exist button" thread turned into a very good discussion of existential angst, arguments for and against existence, etc etc, so I didn't see a good enough reason to lock it. Threadstarters aren't thread-owners, imo, and these things will organically go where they will after an initial period of -- what? personality-flexing? territorial pissing? -- whatever. And then they live or die on their merits, and the button thread has lots of merit.

― WmC, Monday, October 15, 2012 4:20 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Threadstarters aren't thread-owners, imo

this seems to be a *controversial issue* on ilx

― the late great, Monday, October 15, 2012 4:27 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

about WCC threads but then getting all high and mighty like violentacrez was responsible for what jpegs people posted in his threads

makes you think

whatever

whiney g potato_in_my_anus

omg

about WCC threads but then getting all high and mighty like violentacrez was responsible for what jpegs people posted in his threads

― Mary Ty$ Band (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, October 15, 2012 10:54 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how could he have foreseen what people would have posted in his jailbait and upskirt threads...

the man is a hero, if anything

how could he have foreseen that he would post jailbait photos in his jailbait threads

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan sued a disc jockey, the DJ's ex-wife and a gossip website Monday after a sex tape involving Hogan and the woman was posted online.

Hogan said in two lawsuits that he had consensual sex with his best friend's wife, Heather Clem, about six years ago in the Clemses' home, but he did not know he was being secretly recorded.

"Mr. Hogan had a reasonable expectation of his privacy, just as all Americans have a reasonable expectation of their privacy in their bedrooms," attorney Charles Harder said.

The video was posted on the online gossip site Gawker. Hogan is seeking $100 million in damages from the New York-based media company, which declined comment.

It's unclear who gave the video to Gawker.

Think Gawker will out the person who did this?

its ok because its the hulkster

don't think anyone's saying gawker has a moral code

i don't see how either this or the thread ownership thing relates to the violentacrez story

i was gonna post something but then i was typing "hypocrisy" and it came out "hipocracy" and i was like :O :O :O :O

no freedom of speech in the hipocracy i guess

ViolentAcrez is a deplorable guy. But he is *honest* in his ugly behavior.

this is a shitty argument: the stuff that violentacrez et al do isn't honest in the slightest! There is this super bullshit fantasy that internet blowhards like to pretend to believe, which is that the troll is man in a state of nature. Or maybe just that the troll is pure id: something that imbues the troll with a kind of purity of nature. But being a troll is a performance, and playing gross-out oneupmanship and borders-of-illegality oneupmanship is a performance, and the colossal level of disingenuousness required to maintain this shit is a performance. Someone who has decided to adopt the role of "reddit's creepy uncle" is going to be playing up the creep factor for all he can, and inventing new ways to perform creepiness, to maintain the persona. They aren't honest in their ugly behaviour, they're making up new ugly behaviour to impress/disgust other people on the internet.

just cos internet dickery involves being worse than you'd be in society doesn't make it honest.

ps whiney according to that gawker article violentacrez was a mod of /r/jailbait and was regularly required to police the line between 'legal' jailbait images and illegal ones, i.e. his role, at reddit, was to be responsible for what jpegs people posted in that thread.

did you hear that whiney he's a mod so you have to hate him

c# killin it