Angel Beats. It's an okay show somewhere in the Haruhi Suzumiya realm. Nothing spectacular, but it has some very funny moments which made it worth my while.
but I don't know whether he did anything illegal or condoned/encouraged/incited illegal activity, but I'll assume he's a bad guy.
So thank you for at least making my whole paragraph about the social contract vs. legality relevant. Legality isn't the point here. Never was. You, yourself, label him as a bad guy so I reiterate that we explicitly hold people to a standard outside of legal constructs.
I don't see how the inclusion of VA's real name in the article is of any noticeable benefit to society at large. On the other hand, it most definitely causes significant harm to VA himself.
Fostering an environment in which you are responsible for your words and actions in public forums is ostensibly a net positive. I assume that was the intention of this article, though as I'm not the author I can't speak with authority on that point.
Secondly, regarding the damage to VA: I'm not super concrete in this opinion yet, though I will say I can see there being an argument in the idea that Chen did not control the proportionality or even negativity of the response, VA himself did. VA willfully operated outside of the social contract of his given lifestyle, ensuring that his identity needed to be kept secret, and then failed to keep his identity secret. Imagine, if you will, the following secnario:
Chen: I know you're Violent Acrez, *name here* VA: Yeah, of course you do. Everybody does. Even my boss knows. Chen: Oh well then thank you for your time.
No story, no response, no nothing.
This concedes the obvious: those that harass VA though criminal actions should certainly be brought to task for those acts.
Really don't know why I'm still posting here, but...
About the whole argument of "Is it okay to give out this guy's name?" I do have to say, as a potential victim of a creep shot, I'd like to know whether to avoid this guy if I happened to know him in real life. I'd like to know who the creeps are who might take pics under my skirt and post them on the internet. (Still unclear about whether this particular guy actually took any pics or not, so just apply this comment to creep shot taking people in general.)
HOWEVER,
Is it "okay" to give out someone's personal info online and incite violence and retribution and unwanted pizza orders, just to get back at them? I personally think no, it is morally not "okay." Just like its not legal to go beat up/kill the pervert who molested your kid when the system failed you at justice, internet shaming for things like this is not "okay" either. You shouldn't have to stoop to the level of the asshole you're against. But guess what? 'MERICA!!! If they have "free speech" to post vulgar things about women, then we have free speech to say "hey guys, this person is posting vulgar things about women." It confounds me how many people don't get that free speech goes both ways.
Also, is it okay to take pics of parts that women are publicly showing (or can't help showing, like butts or boobs under a shirt) and sexualizing them on the internet without the subject's permission? No, its not morally "okay" and you're definitely committing sexual harassment, but I'm not sure its illegal. We should live in a society that respects other people, but we don't and never will. So my opinion is that if you wear a revealing bikini/whatever or purposefully expose yourself, you're giving permission for people to view that part of you. You have to realize it may happen. Its sad though, because its looking like the only way women can avoid these creep shots is to wear burkas.
I think it's interesting that we are having this discussion now rather than when the Oatmeal lawsuit thing was going on, or during the Ocean Marketing guys fiasco. Or if this was discussed in those cases I missed it.
I think it's interesting that we are having this discussion now rather than when the Oatmeal lawsuit thing was going on, or during the Ocean Marketing guys fiasco. Or if this was discussed in those cases I missed it.
I was thinking about mentioning those but didn't want to instigate more flame. :-P
As entertaining as the Oatmeal fiasco was... that lawyer getting attacked by the internet, esp. his family, was NOT okay. The Oatmeal never told anyone to attack them, but revealing this guys identity and terrible jerk-face actions caused the attack, and they apologized.
So I had an idea for a Deathwatch game. One squad, six marines. 1. Devastator with a heavy bolter 2. Another Devastator with a rocket launcher 3. Tactical Marine with a grenade launcher 4. Scout with a shotgun and power weapon 5. Another scout with sniper rifle 6. Apothecary
in the eyes of this thread, Chen is responsible for breaking the unwritten journalistic integrity code.
Good talk, good talk. But it's not unwritten. In fact, it's written over and over and over in dozens of different textbooks and handbooks for both students and working journos, not to mention that pretty much every media organization worth it's salt has some form of codified ethical guidelines for journalists.
As was presented earlier: had VA's personal information been posted on a well-trafficked WordPress blog, would that have been a miscarriage of "justice?" Gawker is just a large blog with several contributors. The delineation, I feel, is both irrelevant and a distraction to this discussion.
The difference is that Gawker proclaims itself as a professional media outlet, most wordpress blogs do not. The New York times has blogs, that doesn't mean that Wordpress=NYT or vice versa.
Why is Gawker on the internet, held up to a higher journalistic integrity than anyone else on the internet?
Because they are acting in the capacity of a media organization. I'm holding them to the same standard as other Journalistic outlets, because that's exactly what they're proclaiming themselves to be as an organization.
At this point, in an ungoverned, or multi-governed situation, journalistic integrity means shit-all.
Or, y'know, not. That's like saying "Oh, in a situation where you're not being directly supervised by your manager, it doesn't actually matter if a programmer knows how to program or use computers at all." Journalistic integrity is an integral part of journalism, without it, you've got nothing.
That's what you don't seem to realize here, Konis. The responsibilities, duties, and ethics we're talking about here are different from the ones that apply to a regular citizen standing about on the street.
This concedes the obvious: those that harass VA though criminal actions should certainly be brought to task for those acts.
You do realize, of course, that it's entirely possible for Chen to face a court of law if anything happens to VA, as he could potentially be considered legally culpable - at least, according to one of my co-workers from the legal section that I was discussing this with over coffee earlier thismorning, so might need a US lawyer to confirm on that one. However, I'm pretty sure that his actions may qualify as Gross Negligence.
(Still unclear about whether this particular guy actually took any pics or not, so just apply this comment to creep shot taking people in general.)
He did not(though he may have re-posted some, if he posted any), and nor did he create the creepshots community - He was bought in as a moderator, despite what's being depicted quite a bit lately, because he'd proven himself for a long time now to be an excellent moderator for NSFW subreddits. It was also relatively recent - he was bought in relatively late to calm a community that was starting to descend into chaos.
Doxxing is a complicated issue when you start getting into the fact that internet anonymity is a boon for people like Chinese dissidents. If someone is homosexual in places like Iran, they could face not just the scorn of their peers, but death. Basically, I think in a place where there is no free speech and freedom needs anonymity because the laws in those places are very broken, but in places like America where free speech is protected, if people want to hold or enjoy very terrible beliefs like saying photos of 13 year-olds are wank material and that wife beating is sexy, they need to be able to bear up under the baleful gaze of society. I think that you should not espouse beliefs you would be unable to stand up for in the offline world. Don't say things to me on the internet that you would not say to my face. Part of the reason I like this forum is that most of the things people say to me, when they disagree with me, are probably things they would say if we were standing next to each other at a party. If everyone would own up we could have an open and honest conversation about taboo.
I think if someone says something awful, I have the right to judge both their ideas and them personally for holding those ideas. I have the right to say, stand and defend your posting of underage girls, and your street harassment photos. Free speech is a two way street. If you think it is free speech to post unwilling pictures of women's legs on the train, it is also free speech to post information about you. My breasts on the internet = your dox on the internet. End of story.
No, I'm just saying the same free speech principles should apply. If they are truly fighting for the right to post whatever the fuck they want, they have to be able to extend that right to all other people.
No, I'm just saying the same free speech principles should apply. If they are truly fighting for the right to post whatever the fuck they want, they have to be able to extend that right to all other people.
No doubt. The problem isn't the core principle, it's the consequences. Nobody should be harrassing anybody using the internet as a medium. Shaming/harrassing isn't any more (or less) virtuous than doxxing, and neither should happen.
I'm not sure that retaliation-in-kind is something to be encouraged, is all I'm saying.
If you think it is free speech to post unwilling pictures of women's legs on the train, it is also free speech to post information about you. My breasts on the internet = your dox on the internet. End of story.
But that wasn't what this guy was doing. Now, I'm not super informed on the matter, so this guy can be a super creep by all I know, but the subreddits he moderated weren't based around his contributions. Other people posted all the content, he just had to make sure no content that was posted was worse than whatever limit to bad-ness they had set.
People are mad at him for being in a position to stop this, and not having stopped it. But TBH, he'd probably just lose mod privileges if he tried anyway. What you're suggesting is not doxxing a dude taking pictures of your breasts, but the person on the other side of the street that was watching it happening without interfering. But you also wouldn't give enough context to were it would be logical to assume anything but him taking pictures of your breasts.
Well, I gotta say that I don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy who puts himself in a position to be an observer who doesn't intervene in shit that shouldn't be happening. It's not like he was an embedded war correspondant, he was a community member in a community doing questionable and borderline-illegal shit.
I gotta say that the fact it's corporate sponsored makes me already regard the entire stunt with a default of quiet distaste.
Why? I don't get this. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's not a government project. The alternative is to make people pay to stream it. We all know that wouldn't work.
I gotta say that the fact it's corporate sponsored makes me already regard the entire stunt with a default of quiet distaste.
Why? I don't get this. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's not a government project. The alternative is to make people pay to stream it. We all know that wouldn't work.
The explanation would take too long. :-)
I have a problem with capitalism, is what it comes down to. In particular, American capitalism.
Comments
On the other hand, it most definitely causes significant harm to VA himself, and likely to his family.
To me that seems like a net negative, but perhaps there's other benefits to this decision that I'm missing.
Secondly, regarding the damage to VA: I'm not super concrete in this opinion yet, though I will say I can see there being an argument in the idea that Chen did not control the proportionality or even negativity of the response, VA himself did. VA willfully operated outside of the social contract of his given lifestyle, ensuring that his identity needed to be kept secret, and then failed to keep his identity secret. Imagine, if you will, the following secnario: No story, no response, no nothing.
This concedes the obvious: those that harass VA though criminal actions should certainly be brought to task for those acts.
About the whole argument of "Is it okay to give out this guy's name?"
I do have to say, as a potential victim of a creep shot, I'd like to know whether to avoid this guy if I happened to know him in real life. I'd like to know who the creeps are who might take pics under my skirt and post them on the internet. (Still unclear about whether this particular guy actually took any pics or not, so just apply this comment to creep shot taking people in general.)
HOWEVER,
Is it "okay" to give out someone's personal info online and incite violence and retribution and unwanted pizza orders, just to get back at them? I personally think no, it is morally not "okay." Just like its not legal to go beat up/kill the pervert who molested your kid when the system failed you at justice, internet shaming for things like this is not "okay" either. You shouldn't have to stoop to the level of the asshole you're against. But guess what? 'MERICA!!! If they have "free speech" to post vulgar things about women, then we have free speech to say "hey guys, this person is posting vulgar things about women." It confounds me how many people don't get that free speech goes both ways.
Also, is it okay to take pics of parts that women are publicly showing (or can't help showing, like butts or boobs under a shirt) and sexualizing them on the internet without the subject's permission? No, its not morally "okay" and you're definitely committing sexual harassment, but I'm not sure its illegal. We should live in a society that respects other people, but we don't and never will. So my opinion is that if you wear a revealing bikini/whatever or purposefully expose yourself, you're giving permission for people to view that part of you. You have to realize it may happen. Its sad though, because its looking like the only way women can avoid these creep shots is to wear burkas.
As entertaining as the Oatmeal fiasco was... that lawyer getting attacked by the internet, esp. his family, was NOT okay. The Oatmeal never told anyone to attack them, but revealing this guys identity and terrible jerk-face actions caused the attack, and they apologized.
1. Devastator with a heavy bolter
2. Another Devastator with a rocket launcher
3. Tactical Marine with a grenade launcher
4. Scout with a shotgun and power weapon
5. Another scout with sniper rifle
6. Apothecary
That's what you don't seem to realize here, Konis. The responsibilities, duties, and ethics we're talking about here are different from the ones that apply to a regular citizen standing about on the street. You do realize, of course, that it's entirely possible for Chen to face a court of law if anything happens to VA, as he could potentially be considered legally culpable - at least, according to one of my co-workers from the legal section that I was discussing this with over coffee earlier thismorning, so might need a US lawyer to confirm on that one. However, I'm pretty sure that his actions may qualify as Gross Negligence. He did not(though he may have re-posted some, if he posted any), and nor did he create the creepshots community - He was bought in as a moderator, despite what's being depicted quite a bit lately, because he'd proven himself for a long time now to be an excellent moderator for NSFW subreddits. It was also relatively recent - he was bought in relatively late to calm a community that was starting to descend into chaos.
I think if someone says something awful, I have the right to judge both their ideas and them personally for holding those ideas. I have the right to say, stand and defend your posting of underage girls, and your street harassment photos. Free speech is a two way street. If you think it is free speech to post unwilling pictures of women's legs on the train, it is also free speech to post information about you.
My breasts on the internet = your dox on the internet. End of story.
I'm not sure that retaliation-in-kind is something to be encouraged, is all I'm saying.
People are mad at him for being in a position to stop this, and not having stopped it. But TBH, he'd probably just lose mod privileges if he tried anyway. What you're suggesting is not doxxing a dude taking pictures of your breasts, but the person on the other side of the street that was watching it happening without interfering. But you also wouldn't give enough context to were it would be logical to assume anything but him taking pictures of your breasts.
I have a problem with capitalism, is what it comes down to. In particular, American capitalism.