I thought reddit was supposed to be a 'beacon of free speech'. What the fuck do you care if the a person who made sites like /r/beatingwomen is forced to actually face his actions? When did reddit start standing up for pedophiles and sick attention whores?

conspiracy shouldn't ban any sites, neither should reddit.

As far as his identity being known who cares, he knew the possible risks, unless you surf with a top level software firewall, hardware firewall and use quality proxy sites with no direct traces to you, you can be easily found out who you are on the internet.

[deleted]

with no direct traces to you. Yeah I know.

Because they want to protect the ideal of free speech, which hasn't ever really existed. But this guy is just a coward.

When did reddit start standing up for pedophiles and sick attention whores?

I may not agree with their speech, but I'll certainly not vote to censor them.

[deleted]

Child pornography is illegal. Discussing views on alternative interpretations of history is not. At least not yet.

[deleted]

Okay, well assault against anyone including females is illegal.

[deleted]

It is was, Hollywood would be broke

Apparently VA talked to Adrian chenn on his own without being doxxed. Basically everything you posted was from 2 days ago and the new informations confirms this was false. Check out subredditdrama if you don't believe me.

[deleted]

Not by gawker.com. Their only interest in Violentacrez was because of the massive amount of hate and harm he was responsible for. They are a news site that needs readership to stay afloat. I don't think they or their readers care at all about a conspiracy theorist. If it bugs you that much that someone was doxxed, you should ban 4chan, which has dox countless and countless innocent people in the past for no reason.

I think if he is so afraid of his employer's finding out and how this will effect his life then he shouldn't have done the things he has. I mean he posted things on this website that people did like and someone discovered who he was through legal means, I don't see how they differ, they are both along the same ideology. I mean there's no anonymity on the internet. And I think that people that post things in anonymity on the internet are doing it in a fashion that undermines its purpose. What's the old saying "You lie down with the dogs, you're gonna get fleas?"

[deleted]

No, we shouldn't VA was stirring the pot and both parties are completely within their rights of 'free speech' to post things on the internet, isn't it just as technically wrong for us to ban just one?

But I'm really glad you brought up this topic, I think it provides a medium for some relevant, thought-provoking conversation!

What if you were athiest, and used reddit as a community to talk about it without your employer finding out because they would fire you? Should you just censor every part of your life to make sure you don't get fired or shamed? Hell, you should know, you are a subscriber of /r/conspiracy.

For a vast number of reasons, being an atheist is a lot different than being a pedophile. I thought that went without saying.

LMAO!

[deleted]

I think you make a good point, and with you on this subject. Not sure banning Gawker is the answer, although it would seem logical to hit their pockets.

The response/possible gaming of this thread concerns the hell out of me. Honestly, I'm not sure which one is worse.

It looks like it might be time to leave reddit behind. It's become part of the problem.

Shit, they might dox all of the most active users here and sell that info to whoever.

This has already been done. As I imagine you know.

Man, fuck these assholes. Why can't they leave us alone! But no, they must make us like them. No respect or discussion. Just mob mentality and cheap outrage.

When they drive people from their (internet) communities, that is when people start flipping out.

We could be next. Any of us at any time. If this tactic used by gawker is legitimate then why can't conspiratard do the same to us?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/duplicates/11f03p/unmasking_reddits_violentacrez_the_biggest_troll/

Please don't discriminate against me. Since you reported me to Reddit, then you must report all the other posters of the same link.

Keep in mind that posting the link does not mean I agree or disagree with the story, I posted it for comment, that's called free speech.

You were wrong to report me for violating free speech. Or is his more equal than mine? Do you always report speech you disagree with?

I reported every user who posted this link.

You are helping to publish this man's real identity. That isn't free speech, that is a direct attack.

Vigilantism is a very dangerous action. That they set up a page with names and data on suspected posters of illegal and questionable material is risky, any personal vendetta or special interest can brand you as a pervert and turn your life into hell just by adding your data next to actual culprits'.

Then again, have to say that, free speech and everything, many of the subreddits in the controversy had borderline material that while technically legal is ethically undefensible and it helps bring the wrong kind of attention to this place. For Gawker it is just hits and promotion; they are using the justified outrage of people here that have been in contact with that kind of abuse and found outing the pervs the only effective way to protest.

Difficult to try and side with guys that put violent, hateful or illegal material. Difficult as well to accept the kneejerk tactics that might be abused against others later, just for dissenting actitudes.

i say fuck it. one word: reptilians

What's the background with this?

What did the user do/say or whatever it may be?

I'll try to explain as simple as possible.

Gawker.com (which to be fair, is usually very sensational and pot-stirring) found out the idenity of Violentarcez, who is a redditor imfamous for creating subreddits like /r/creepshots /r/beatingwomen /r/jailbait and countless others. They posted an article on him yesterday I think it was and now a lot of subreddits have banned Gawker.com and their affiliates from being posted/talked about.

Ah ok, thanks for that

Bit of a shit thing for them to do regardless of what he gets up to online

He's done a lot more shit to put himself in this position. I mean to take pictures of 14 year old girls in bikinis and put them online saying "if they didn't want to be seen they shouldn't have put them up there" is the same has posting those pictures and not wanting your employer to see it, then he shouldn't have done it! (I believe that is an extremely important point the article points out)

Ahh ok..now it makes more sense...thanks.

Well yeah, it is and it isn't. This guy caused a lot of pain for abused women, abused children, and he was racist and homophobic on a pretty large scale. Because he's never had to deal with those problems in his life it was pretty easy for him to make fun of horrible stuff like that, then say things like "eeeeyy lighten up guys! it's a joke!" Personally, I find it fucking hilarious that now he has to own up to all the things he's said when he was a big man because he was anonymous.

To be my own devil's advocate though, I don't think he should be killed for those things and now that his name is out there, one could easily look up his address and go and slice his throat if they really wanted to. I wouldn't be sad or anything, but I'm not for vigilante justice.

Sounds like he had a touch of Keyboard Warrior Syndrome

There's an epidemic of that going around.

There has been since the early 90's from my experience

one could easily look up his address and go and slice his throat if they really wanted to. I wouldn't be sad or anything,

Because he's never had to deal with those problems in his life it was pretty easy for him to make fun of horrible stuff like that, then say things like "eeeeyy lighten up guys! it's a joke!"

You agenda pushing shill. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, the boycott is justified.

Its important that we protect unpopular speech. /r/conspiracy IS by most people's standards "unpopular speech".

You guys might not have participated in subreddits that show pictures of underage girls. I hope not. You probably never visited /r/beatingwomen (i hope not). This isn't about the specifics of who posted what, its about everyone's right to post whatever the hell they want to WITHOUT fear of retaliation.

What if /r/conspiratard doxxed you to your employer? Would your workplace think less of you for being a tin-hat wearing nut case? Don't we have the right to talk about these unpopular subjects without our bosses being told that we believe in UFOs and that Israel is warmongering?

That could be the end of your JOB.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

The feminist are happy about this, it's their enemy and they don't give two shits about anyone's rights but their own.

I hate having to selectively comb through submissions to find stuff from individual web sites.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=reddit%3Aconspiracy+site%3Agawker&sort=new

EDIT: not saying whether or not I agree/disagree with the boycott. Just showing the easy path, depending on your decision.

EDIT2: You could also have automod just start boycotting forward from the present, without removing old posts.

[deleted]

I think they do care, but they care on both sides, in balance. I still haven't made any decision on it, myself. And, as a result, I don't think it's a decision that should be made in haste - especially not after all the effort sunshine-x put into u/uncensorship, and the fact that you've configured u/automoderator to approve everything.

My biggest fear about making any sort of "recommendation" toward the decision is that you might actually act on it (no offense, but you're kind of impulsive that way). Thus why my comment is neutral at this point.

I'm very troubled by the violation of anonymity and have been scratching my head and tugging at my beard for ways to improve it on reddit.

One idea I had this morning was as follows (totally unrelated to the gawker thing, btw)...

A few days ago, someone suggested that we all spend one day "ignoring usernames and just voting on comment quality" (or something to that effect). While this is certainly how things should work, it's not actually possible to ignore usernames, once you've been around for a few months. So,... I came up with another idea (that I'm still refining, but willing to share a little bit here, now)...

reddit should make it so that usernames do not appear at all until after you've voted on a comment. AND votes must be locked in and unchangeable. AND the little "dot" between the up/downvotes can become a neutral vote, allowing you to vote neutral. Then, once you've voted (and it is locked and unchangeable), the username of the comment/post would be revealed to you (while you are logged in). Furthermore, anyone not logged in will not see usernames at all.

In order to identify users in comment threads prior to voting, usernames would be replaced with incrementally numbered "name-place-holders"

So, for example...

You, 9000sins, post a submission. To non-logged-in users and to users who are logged in, but have not voted yet, It would simply show the username "redditor0". And, every comment you make under that submission would also identify you simply as "redditor0". Subsequent commenters would be identified as "redditor1" (2, 3, etc.) in the order in which they add their comments. So... if I'm the first person to comment on your submission, I would be identified (to non-logged-in users and to logged-in-users who haven't voted on MY comment) as "redditor1" for every comment I make in under that submission.

Under someone else's submission, I might become "redditor42" (or whatever number was next when I added my first comment to that submission).

The problem I see is that someone could upvote one comment in order to identify a user (throughout an entire post), then downvote every other comment made by that user. So, it's not perfect (yet). I'm still thinking it through.

Anyway, back to the gawker thing. Has there been any comments about the duration of the boycott? If there is no duration (e.g., until an apology is issued or an article retracted or whatever), then I'm opposed to joining the boycott, because it appears to be potentially permanent censorship.

I also agree with many aspects of all sides of this issue, for what it's worth.

• VA should have known this was a potential.

• VA was "putting himself at risk" the whole time.

However,...

• gawker crossed the line (anonymous does this to gov't officials and reddit throws a fit over it - banning the links and stuff, because it's a violation of policy to reveal personal information).

I'm a strong advocate for anonymity and I think what gawker did was reprehensible. But, I also understand that the internet is no longer anonymous - TPTB have access to everything.

I think it's a sad reflection on the state of the internet and social media, but I also think it holds a great deal of potential to bring about important change for the better (if we, for example, downvote every gawker post, rather than clicking through to the ad revenue). It can also give reddit a chance to review their own activities (ref: sunshine-x's 10.x issue).

You should be removed as a moderator for suggesting a ban on an entire news source.

You should be banned for saying Gawker is a "news source"

You should be banned for being a hack.

[deleted]

Oh, you and saying this Reddit is a democracy. Too funny. Reminds me of this... cheerocracy and you're the cheertator.

[deleted]

You take your role too seriously and parade around like a celebrity with your annoying flair.

[deleted]

"You know the Nazis had flair they made the Jews wear..." - Office Space

Hang in there, 9000SINS. I appreciate what you do. And Gawker sucks.

reported ;).

no, really.