When you tout yourself as an open forum for subcommunities, I think it becomes really difficult to police. As far as I can tell (not a Reddit-user, used Digg but never registered/contributed), Reddit relies on self-policing. After all, it was a staff of two for most of their existence.
Gawker and Reddit fight over "free speech", child pornography, patting selves on back
- Thread starter karby
- Start date
- Status
You can't see the harm in taking private photos of underage girls and putting them on a website with the intention of people viewing them for masturbation? You think this is okay?
He's taking private photos, how is he gaining access to these private photos?
That said, as creepy as shit as it is... I myself don't see any harm.
cutmeamango
Banned
One is a cute pic.
The other is posted in /r/hotbabby.
Which of these photos is okay?!
Indrid Cold1
Member
opticalmace
Member
edit: nm
it's cool, my first post here was a bit too reactionary to protecting someone's identity online for stupid stuff.
Photos on Facebook set to friends online are "private". You have a list of people who are approved to see a photo and that's it. Distributing the photo beyond that list without the person's consent is exploitation and in this case it's sexual exploitation.
jediyoshi
Member
So are public photos fair game? What's the distinction here?
Well, rule of thumb, anything on the internet isn't private.. as much as some sites might label it as so.
Even if private, no I don't see any harm. So wait he was "friended" by these people?
I don't mean in this specific instance. I mean in general if someone takes photos from Facebook and uploads them as was suggested in the thread.
I said nothing of the sort. I just asked when and how an innocent image of a clothed person suddenly becomes considered pornography. Is it because it's been compiled with similar images? Is it because you assume someone's masturbating to it?
I'm not saying where the line is, just wondering where people draw it. I generally don't call something pornography until clothes are taken off or posing/clothing becomes very overtly sexual, but am interested to see how context affects others' evaluation.
Whether or not the photos deserve to be "private" is another issue entirely, particularly when the person in the picture willfully posted them on a Photobucket, Facebook, etc.
Alebrije
Member
Yea ,who the hell wants to see that.
grimshawish
Banned
All the arguments in this thread? Debate away - but why exactly is it wrong to reveal his identity?
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Its funny when you consider people like Obama and Ira Glass have done AMAs there.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Why did i google that? :|
Delusibeta
Banned
Ah, so I see ShitRedditSays has some friends in the media, then.
It reeks of blackmail and vigilantism. It's totally outside the law and prone to abuse.
What if the guy in question is innocent? You need a due process and a very strict legal and ethical oversight for that kind of stuff. Internet vigilantism is a really big problem. If you have serious suspicions about the actions of one individual, you bring them to the appropriate authorities and you let them do their job. Never take the law into your own hands.
Gawker could have made a very interesting piece about that kind of content on the internet. How it should be dealt with and how communities are policing(or not) themselves. Instead, they picked the trashy magazine route and wen't all in with the "name and shame" game. That's not something I can get behind no matter the issue at hand.
what if he revealed the guys identity and had framed you?
Kano on the Phone
Member
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Sounds like journalism, to me. Like, old school journalism.
Supermanisdead
Member
Yeah.
I wasn't trying to incite, though. I literally just ctrl+v'd it from the article. I don't use reddit. I used to, but that was well over three to four years ago. I knew that GAF had a pretty loyal reddit user-base, and I figured they'd be privy to explaining any reddit happenings, and missing or nuanced information from the article, so I decided to ask.grimshawish
Banned
Their just stating that this guy posted this stuff.
How exactly is that vigilantism? Its journalism. (looking at the first article on gawker just now you wouldn't know it).
True point; but I'd sue then for an ever inch they as a company and the authors own as I didn't do these things and I'm sure I could prove they have no evidence to suggest I did.
Exactly. Just stating someone did something. Its hardly controversial.
teacupcopter
Banned
How are these reddit defenders so stupid? Almost every country that has child pornography laws specify intent as the biggest part of the crime. So yes, while a 'clear' example of child porn would be some sick photo of a clearly underage kid performing sex acts, the other example is like 13 year olds at the beach - could be one pulled from a family photo album (clear 'good' use) and the same photo is child pornography when downloaded/used/kept for the purposes of sexual gratification - aka r/jailbait.
jediyoshi
Member
It's balanced out pretty well by people not actually understanding how reddit functions, you should've seen the last thread.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Go ahead Gawker, you have my support in publicly shaming him.
I'm sure that's just as "illegal" as posting pictures of dead kids and sexually suggestive photography of underage people.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Like how r/jailbait isn't even a thing anymore. It was shut down a while ago. It was in all the papers.
Macmanus
Member
Because your anonymity on the internet should only be removed if A: You've volunteered that information or B: You've committed a crime that warrants said removal.
You can be as morally opposed to his actions as you want, that doesn't mean he has committed a crime or harmed anyone. Once his identity is revealed, a best case scenario for him is vapid death threats and minor vandalism to his property. Best case. I don't think being a super creep warrants having your life flipped upside down - even if you're super gross.
I remember the first time I encountered /r/spacedicks...
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
By that logic every and all forms of investigative journalism should be against the law. Is true reporting really that foreign a concept these days?
Macmanus
Member
Without that story being vetted in the slightest? You people are fucking scary and almost as creepy with your Orwellian logic.
I never once claimed anything was against the law. Also you clearly have no idea what "true reporting" is. TAL is true reporting. Frontline is true reporting. Vanguard is true reporting. This is a vapid Gawker blogger with a vendetta.
A blogger received information of who he was, but has never vetted whether he actually posted anything, if any of the stories he told are true, etc. I'm not even sure you understand the basics of investigation. Honestly, to call anything Gawker would "print" true journalism is intellectually insulting.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
The guy is apparently also running the /r/apingwomen reddit as well.
If it can't be removed through legal processes, then I'm all for people pushing for reddit to remove them - which is in accordance with their right to free speech.
If it can't be removed through legal processes, then I'm all for people pushing for reddit to remove them - which is in accordance with their right to free speech.
You are confusing the intent of the photographer with the intent of the viewer.
"True reporting" ? What are you talking about. Journalism is not police work, especially moral police.
Delusibeta
Banned
Possibility: what if the details lead to someone who has never heard of Reddit? You know how doxxing tends to be fairly unreliable. They shouldn't unleash paedogeddon unless they've checked that their target is who they say it is.
teacupcopter
Banned
That can also effect it yes, but if someone stole a bunch of photos of a mum bathing her baby (a common photo I think) and had them in their basement near CD's full of porn videos, I think they'd still say the intent of the viewer matters.
drkOne
Member
Does Reddit even care about this bad publicity?
I mean between creepshots, jailbait and whatever else Reddit gets some bad publicity, but I don't think it affects the site.
I'm pretty sure it's a case of any publicity is good publicity. I think that /r/creepshots got a bump on users after it appeared on the news, so...
Reddit isn't the new 4chan, it just happens that if you let people post whatever they want on the internet, and have communities based on shared interests, it's pretty normal there's gonna be a group of people who like spacedicks and posting that stuff.
Same thing with dead children, cute animals, giraffes, incest, ice-cream, everything anyone can think of.
Once you get a big community going it's much more likely that there'll be a bunch of people that are into that creepy weird stuff.
That dude going against someone on the internet should get a life, seriously.
Or actually try to catch actual pedophiles by going on the deep web.
I mean between creepshots, jailbait and whatever else Reddit gets some bad publicity, but I don't think it affects the site.
I'm pretty sure it's a case of any publicity is good publicity. I think that /r/creepshots got a bump on users after it appeared on the news, so...
Reddit isn't the new 4chan, it just happens that if you let people post whatever they want on the internet, and have communities based on shared interests, it's pretty normal there's gonna be a group of people who like spacedicks and posting that stuff.
Same thing with dead children, cute animals, giraffes, incest, ice-cream, everything anyone can think of.
Once you get a big community going it's much more likely that there'll be a bunch of people that are into that creepy weird stuff.
That dude going against someone on the internet should get a life, seriously.
Or actually try to catch actual pedophiles by going on the deep web.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I posted in the other thread that netizens could simply be the watchers of the watchers to ensure that no immoral transgressions occur.
I think that's a pretty good safeguard.
I think that's a pretty good safeguard.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked