Notorious Reddit Troll exposed

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Well, I'm asking where ti comes from and where it goes, because I don't know anything about how Redditt is structured or works. My understanding is that anyone can make a subredditt for anything, so its arguable that the people who use them are more responsible than the person who created them, right?

The person who starts the subreddit is also the moderator. They moderate what content is posted there. And violentacrez was not a passive creator. He actively moderated the subreddits I referred to and contributed to their content. So I guess he was at least equally responsible as the people who used them, but I'd argue more-so, since he created places for them to spread their content and encouraged their behavior.

[Scrib]

I can see why the guy is called a troll, it's hard to picture anyone believing in all the disgusting things in those subreddits.

[Skgoa]

Reddit works like any other free forum plattform. You can start your own little forum (actually, there is no rule it has to be reddit-style forum) and do anything there that doesn't break the law. Trying to make definitve statement about all subreddits is an extremely idiotic endeavour. Most subreddits have their own set of rules like any forum on the internet does. Most subreddits will not accept CP or anything related. And like any other forum host on the internet, they delete forums that cross the line once found.
Claiming that a number of subreddits that most redditors didn't even know existed somehow had the approval of the majority of redditors is just stupid. Not only did the drive to get them deleted come from inside reddit itself and is way older than this new development, making such a blanket statement without even the slightest hint of substanciating proof is untenable by any standard.

The ironic thing is: I do agree with Seraph on his/her judgement of that guy, those subreddits and yes, the reddit admins. Fuck them. But identifying a problematic part is one thing, condeming the whole for it is something completely different. That's where the idiotic internet tough guy statements tend to come out, as can be seen in this thread.


edit: Also, the claim that the ban on links to Gawker sites was in reaction to this is a bold lie. Gawker has been blatantly stealing content (e.g. copying posts word for word and not attributing them) from Reddit for quite a while now, which is why many subreddits decided to not support them in any way, shape or form. Some subreddits (e.g. r/formula1 of the top of my head) don't have that rule and frankly don't give a shit about Gawker. We had the same issue with motorsports.com recently, though, which is why we don't link there anymore.

[Losonti Tokash]

Long story short, you think it's wrong to call reddit a cesspool just because its administration, staff, and most active communities actively protect people who spread pedophilia, racism, misogyny, and other disgusting behaviors throughout the entire website. There's numerous examples throughout this thread and the article of just that, but up until now your sole rebuttal had been "nuh uh stupidhead." Now you just pretend none of it exists!

Sovereign: you realize ephebophila is barely different and is still fucked up, right? Or are you just trying to rationalize your sexual attraction to minors?

[madd0ct0r]

how can you steal content off reddit? the site's just a mass of links.

[Losonti Tokash]

Yeah, and I'm sure the fact that Gawker was banned immediately after this article was just a huuuge coincidence. Totally not a lame attempt to stop people from reading it! Nevermind banning a link to Gawker would do absolutely zero to stop them "stealing" the endless piles of shitty memes the place is covered in. Between this and the "no minors" rule which goes totally unenforced, Skgoa's inept attempt to defend a bunch of people who protect pedophiles only keeps getting funnier.

[Thanas]

I think the real problem is that reddit is just so very huge. I check the site daily and didn't even know who that guy was.


Even if the admins were willing to clean it up it might be a very huge/impossible problem.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Sovereign: you realize ephebophila is barely different and is still fucked up, right?

Barely different? Seriously?

If you ever post an image like that again, you will answer to me, and it will not be pretty. ~D

[Eulogy]

[Snip NSFW bullshit]

Goddammit, is it so hard to put that behind a link with a NSFW tag?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Goddammit, is it so hard to put that behind a link with a NSFW tag?

That rather depends on how you define what constitutes NSFW- there's nothing illegal there

[fgalkin]

Goddammit, is it so hard to put that behind a link with a NSFW tag?

That rather depends on how you define what constitutes NSFW- there's nothing illegal there

Are you retarded? Do you not know what "NSFW" stands for? What does legality have to do with it?


Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Formless]

No... just... no, dude, NSFW has one very well understood meaning. It means you shouldn't be viewing that kind of thing from work or else your employer could punish you for it. It has nothing to do with the law, and regardless of your opinions on the morality of it, its a matter of simple thoughtfulness of others to label that kind of thing so that you don't accidentally get them fucking fired.

Stop and think before you post. Shit, mang.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Here's the meaning:

Not suitable/safe for work (NSFW) is Internet slang or shorthand. Typically, the NSFW tag is used in e-mail, videos, and on interactive discussion areas (such as Internet forums, blogs, or community websites) to mark URLs or hyperlinks which contain material such as pornography or profanity, which the viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as at work.

NSFW has particular relevance for individuals making personal use of the Internet at workplaces or schools which have policies prohibiting (even inadvertent) access to sexually provocative content. Companies and schools frequently adopt such policies because they regard the presence of sexual content as a misuse of company property (or education resources) and, potentially, a violation of sexual harassment policy.[1]

Determining a site to be NSFW is invariably subjective, and poses challenges for academics who study sexuality

The only reason you'd get fired for seeing that picture is if you're not allowed personal internet use at work, since there's no porn in there or anything else that would justify firing versus the same fucking thread without said picture.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

You mean aside the fact it contains teenagers in their underwear, not to mention borderline fucking upskirt pictures of little girls? You don't think some employers would find that objectionable?

Fucking hell, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Dalton]

ES: You will cease attempting to justify your piss-poor judgment with semantics bullshit about what constitutes imagery that is Not Safe For Work. I do not care about whatever arbitrary definition you found on the internet. Images like the ones you posted should be LINKED and CLEARLY marked as NSFW, PERIOD. End of fucking story. Do not make me have to penalize you further. I am not in a charitable mood.

[Stark]

I can assure you that many employers allow their staff nearly unrestricted but monitored Internet usage. This is why the NSFW thing exists:in a basic way, the Internet you use at work is provided by your employer, and they do not want to be 'providing' exploitative and/or thoroughly inappropriate material for obvious legal and HR reasons.

In short something doesn't have to be illegal to be 'NSFW', it just has to violate typical terms of employer conditions or policies.

And I can confidently state that if someone was just chilling out at my department looking at this stuff, they would immediately have disciplinary processes started to manage this undesirable behaviour.

[Skywalker_T-65]

...that is just...OH. MY. GOD.

Even if you want to argue semantics, you just DON'T look at stuff like that...

I repeat... OH MY GOD...

[Stark]

I think the real problem is that reddit is just so very huge. I check the site daily and didn't even know who that guy was.

Even if the admins were willing to clean it up it might be a very huge/impossible problem.

When the whole structure of the site apparently facilitates it and these subredditts were the number 2 google result for 'redditt', I think it's clear where the ultimate responsibility lies. Is it ok that the administration apparently believes their ideal of open, user moderated content, is more important than all the terrible things they have to sweep under the carpet?

[Thanas]

I don't think that is a valid tradeoff, no. But then again reddit really doesn't seem to give a crap about moderation by design.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The point I was making was that there's a huge difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia, the Jimmy Savile case was one example of being mis-labelled. At least the news service over here was smart enough not to parrot it.

[Terralthra]

Whatever point you think you were making, have some goddamn courtesy for those of us who have jobs we'd like to keep.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Or are at school (College) and would rather not lose their wi-fi privileges.

(yes, minor in comparison)

[fgalkin]

Here's the meaning:

Determining a site to be NSFW is invariably subjective, and poses challenges for academics who study sexuality

That means, NSFW is WHATEVER EMPLOYERS DEFINE as NSFW. Whatever arguments you make are irrelevant, and your own damn source says this. So shut the fuck up already.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Alright, here:

Warning- NSFW

Happy now?

[Terralthra]

The overall point, that ephebophilia and pedophilia are not really the same thing, is valid. The vast popularity and profitability of porn with themes and titles like "Just Over Eighteen," "Barely Legal," etc. is proof enough that attraction to late-to-barely-post-pubescent women is validated and not considered pathological in the US. For that to be the case implies that it's a matter of legality that a young woman 17 years and 364 days old is "off-limits," while a day later she can be a porn actress, not morality regarding her ability to consent to sex in any realistic sense, nor that there is anything morally repugnant about a 17 year-old being sexually attractive. Fuck me, anyone expressing moral outrage at this, to whom exactly were you attracted in high school? Did you flagellate yourselves any time you felt pangs of attraction to your classmates?

The main problem with statutory rape is the vast power differential that can exist between a full adult and a teenager, not that anything is particularly wrong with a sexually active 16 year-old (ephebophilia generally is defined as a sexual attraction to teenagers in the age past where secondary sex characteristics have developed; think 15-19). This can also be seen in the laws regarding statutory rape, as in California, for example, where if I (30 years old) were to have sexual relations with a 17 year-old, I'd be committing a felony, but a 19 year-old would not, for the same act. The implied power differential, and inherent potential for abuse, is the issue society concerns itself with, and rightly so.

Pedophilia, the sexual preference for clearly pre-pubescent children, is a much more clear-cut pathological and dysfunctional condition.

Creepshots aren't "illegal," at least, not in concept (many individual examples certainly could be, but that's not really a debate). They're creepy as shit, and that's the problem. The current response is probably the best method I've seen for counteracting this shit. You're going to post sexualized pictures of people and hide behind "they're in public, I'm allowed to take pictures!"? Fine. You've made your personal information public, and we're going to post it, along with a description of your creepy behavior. What now?