A Tumblr that purports to collect publicly-available information on "Predditors," male Reddit users who like to post non-consensual sexual photos of women and girls, is live. Various creepy subreddits are being taken down, then re-created under new names, as internet-drama erupts between Reddit and Gawker over the right to be a disgusting, abusive, sexist shitball on the internet, without accountability or consequence. More at Jezebel. At issue, in part, is whether the men being doxed are the pervs, or moderators keeping the pervs in line, or some combination thereof. My head hurts.

  • kartwaffles

    Gawker’s journos are doxing _the_moderators_ of those creepy subreddits. Those moderators are volunteers trying to keep those creepy subreddits _legal_ by stopping the very crap Gawker’s whiteknights claim to be fighting.

    Adrian Chen of Gawker tweeted this morning “I hereby ban reddit from linking to my blog posts. If I see a reddit link to one of my blog posts I will file a DMCA takedown.” http://i.imgur.com/2aZuo.png

    Also: Jezebel and Gawker are in cahoots. Linking to Jezbel implies support for Gawker, Xeni ;)

    • pablohoney

       the DMCA takedown thing is a joke right?

      • kartwaffles

        So, you’re speculating that Adrian Chen is doing it for the lulz?

    • novium

      So…they’re fighting to keep something hugely creepy and invasive and wrong legal, so….? It’s still hugely creepy and invasive and wrong? Or it can continue to be hugely creepy and invasive and wrong without stepping over the line where it’d break the law and have to be stopped? What?  

      • kartwaffles

         Not sure what you mean by “wrong”. As for “creepy”, yep, I tend to agree, although it’s obviously rather subjective. As for “invasive”, that’s where the law and moderators come in.

        • novium

          Which words in particular are you having trouble with?

          Invasive has nothing to do with the moderators let alone the law (although yes! a lot of those creeper photos do count as invasive under the law in many places, including the US and are illegal!). It has to do with the person whose privacy is being invaded. Here’s the definition of invasive for ya: 
          (esp. of an action or sensation) Tending to intrude on a person’s thoughts or privacy.Notice that the law does not figure into whether or not something invasive. Even if it were legal, it’d still be invasive and creepy.

          Wrong:  unjust, dishonest, or immoral action. Incorrect. Synonyms:adjective.  incorrect – erroneous – mistaken – false – improper – badadverb.  amiss – wrongly – mistakenly – incorrectly – badlynoun.  injustice – harm – fault – evil – error – iniquityverb.  injure – harm

          • EH

            What if you think of it as democratized paparazzi? Maybe in the future everybody will be famous for 15 upboats.

          • Mantissa128

            Indeed. You have no expectation of privacy in public. If you only knew how many security cameras you have been captured on during the day, and who is looking at the footage.

          • Brainspore

            @Mantissa128:disqus 

            You have no expectation of privacy in public.

            Incorrect. You have a substantially diminished expectation of privacy in public, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Upskirt cams, peepholes in public restrooms, and similar kinds of behavior are both creepy and illegal.

  • Brainspore

    Interesting that people who distribute these images have such a selective definition of what constitutes “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

  • chrisdag

    Where is gawker doxing anyone? The main action (I thought) was on the scarily well researched Predditors tumbler which is not run by a gawker person. 

    • http://www.xeni.net/ Xeni Jardin

      Let the record show that my post here does not claim that “Gawker” is “doxing” anyone.

      • chrisdag

        Sorry Xeni, was replying to a comment upthread 

  • anrs

    It was an individual woman, not Gawker and not a ‘whiteknight’ (mythical creature that only exists in MRA fantasyland), who made the predditors tumblr that named and shamed the people posting the creepy pics. I for one salute her. More of this sort of thing, please.

    • novium

      I agree. Kills two birds with one stone: 1) gives creepers a taste of their own medicine. b) highlights the insane privacy issues with what facebook et al make permanently public, also, the way that your accounts can be connected, and the risks inherent in sharing too much online.

    • elix

      White knights exist in far more venues than the deluded hate-boner masturbatory fantasies of MRAs, but you have a definite point otherwise.

  • chrisdag

    I just re-read some of the non-gawker coverage trying to figure out where kartwaffles’s claim that “gawker is doxing the oh so heroic moderators”. The claim is based on a rumor that Adrian Chen is planning on running a story that outs the personal info of a particular moderator. So basically they are freaking out about a rumor and an as-yet-unpublished story.

    Predditors is fantastic. It’s amazing how much public info these creepers put out there — you really can tell that they’ve been operating in a consequence-free environment now, probably for years. The horror and poutrage at having their own words and actions examined by others is amazing to see. 

    • kartwaffles

      Yep, it’s pretty funny how butthurt those creeps can be. They’re just taking photos in public, though. As a fan of liberty, I can’t in good conscience let Gawker or whoever pretend they’re on an immaculate high horse.

      • http://www.ikaink.net Itsumishi

        You’ve got to be kidding right. You think “Nice ass at hotel party thing” or “creeped on a customer” is the same as taking a photo of someone in public?

        FFS.

      • novium

        Generally speaking, you’re supposed to ask someone’s permission before you take their picture. It’s good manners, if nothing else. Being a woman out in public does not give everyone and anyone the right to her body. 

        • disillusion

          Legally speaking though for the US you don’t have to.  I know in Japan they have some laws where if your picture infringed their right to privacy they can sue you.  One example that I’ve seen was a person took a picture with a couple in it that were having an affair at the time.

          But yea, if taking pictures of unsuspectic people were illegal then there would be no paparazzi which, to be fair, would be a good thing, but not worth the rights photographers would lose.

        • Joseph Neal

           As a former photojournalist, I’d take the pic and then get the subject’s name along with an OK to use it.  You can’t get really decent candid photos if the person knows they are being photographed.  There’s a big difference between documenting the human condition and get a cam shot of somebody’s ass though.  Unfortunately both fall under the same legal protection so you can’t stop one without stopping the other.

          • EH

            So, you take a bunch of pictures, both creepy and not, then show her the least creepy one and get her to sign a generic model release form. Hacked!

          • novium

            But there are restrictions, aren’t there? What about the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act? “Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual’s consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
            (Defines a “private area” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s1301

          • Michael Malus

            The key point here is that the legal standard for “reasonable expectation of privacy” doesn’t cover pictures taken in a public place, which is what I understand these redditors were doing.

          • EH

            “Reasonable expectation of privacy” == indoors

          • novium

            @google-a105c53d4804cafded6562694e318d9c:disqus It does, actually. From the text of the law: “reasonable expectation of privacy” was in part defined as: “(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.”

      • wysinwyg

        “As a fan of liberty” you probably shouldn’t be defending the asshats who are ruining liberty for the rest of us by taking creepy photos of women.

        • Michael Malus

          First they came for the…

          • wysinwyg

            Doesn’t apply.  Liberty isn’t “anything goes.”  Liberty entails some degree of personal responsibility and self-restraint.  Those who refuse to engage in such virtues and abuse their liberty for purely self-serving reasons undermine the moral justification of freedom.  They ruin it for those of us who use freedom in pro-social and constructive ways.

            You’re not defending political prisoners or oppressed social activists.  You’re defending a bunch of perverts on reddit who don’t have the balls to stand up and take responsibility for their own speech and actions.  They’re not doing freedom any favors and neither are you.

          • EH

            It’s not me who would take an interest in that information, I don’t care what your real name is.

          • wysinwyg

            Then what was the purpose of your comment?

            Just trolling?

          • EH

            That comment has the wrong parent, courtesy Disqus.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mudassir-Chapra/652183153 Mudassir Chapra

    I don’t know how many times BoingBoing asked consent of people when they post their embarrassing animated gifs…

    This is a very nuanced issue and it’s good that it’s been brought up for discourse, but the internet is full of emotional entitled male-rage and equally emotional misguided, over-eager white-knights (yes they do exist) to be of any consequence.

    • Brainspore

      I don’t know how many times BoingBoing asked consent of people when they post their embarrassing animated gifs…

      Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly the same thing as taking upskirt shots without the subjects’ knowledge or permission then sharing them across the internet.

      • Antinous / Moderator

        More importantly, where are the links to the embarrassing animated gifs that we’ve posted so that we may laugh at them anew?

        • http://twitter.com/muddi900 muddi900

          I wasn’t targeting BB specifically, sorry I didn’t make that clear, and it could be anything, a funny video, an old ad, but more to the point Reddit it self contains links to thousands if not millions of photos and videos of people in embarrassing situations, where no consent is ever given by the subjects. Now, is the proposition here is that unless they contain sexual objectification of women, it’s ok to not have consent?

          For example, woman slips over banana peel => OK
          woman slips over banana peel in a bikini=> not OK?

          These are not rhetorical questions, by the way. I really am curious what people think here.

          • wysinwyg

            Drawing moral equivalence between PUA POSs and these “white knights” I keep hearing so much about, plus “just asking questions.”  Yeah, I’m sure a discussion with you would be a really productive use of anyone’s time.

          • http://twitter.com/muddi900 muddi900

            Tu Quoque

    • http://www.ikaink.net Itsumishi

      Yes, point to these gifs! I want giggles.

  • Chris Ingram

    This is great, everyone needs to share this and get their names out there.

  • magicdragonfly

    You wanted a free and open internet? Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.

    • EH

      A nightmare of upskirt photos.

    • wysinwyg

      WTF does this have to do with “a free and open internet”?

  • Purplecat

    Are we really cool with the whole “Let’s encourage internet vigilantism” thing?

    Really?

    • anrs

      Taking creepshots is internet vigilantism against the idea that women are human beings deserving of respect.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Pyster Bruce Landwaster

         Actually, no, it isnt. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilantism

        These people are advocating nothing but the thing they are interested in.

        I do believe they are not working inside the idea of ‘your rights end where another’s begin’, and that its kinda creepy.

        • EH

          It’s a technological gap in the law, if anything.

    • http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/ J. Brad Hicks

      Not to mention the head ‘sploding irony of “They’re invading people’s privacy by taking pictures of them in public! Let’s demonstrate our moral superiority by depriving them of their privacy!”

      Nor to mention the head ‘sploding irony of this being picked up by Boing Boing, which has been on a crusade about the right to take photographs in public ever since the War on Terror began. Photographing the security outside a nuclear plant = artistic expression, photographing a pretty girl because you think she’s pretty = horrible attack.

      • novium

        I don’t think that’s ironic. I think that’s the point. Those who strip others of their privacy don’t deserve it either.

      • wysinwyg

        There’s a difference between “the right to take photographs in public” and “the right to anonymously take upskirt photos of women and public and post them online while avoiding any social repercussions for those actions.”  As far as I know, Boing Boing hasn’t been snarling angrily about the identities of photographers being harassed by the police being released.  For the most part the photographers don’t really seem to mind being identified either.

        There’s no real irony here.  If we’re not allowed to hold people responsible for their own creepy, immoral actions then we might as well kiss civilization goodbye. 

    • DataShade

      The proper response to offensive speech is more speech.  If the creepers want to hide behind the laws designed to protect photojournalism and artistic photography, then the proper response is speech.

      Nothing about compiling the information they have, themselves, released publicly, is vigilantism.

    • wysinwyg

      Right, and when the New York Times reports on a crime committed or on some antisocial act they’re also engaging in vigilantism.  Because holding people responsible for their actions is totally vigilantism.

      • Mantissa128

        Because holding people responsible for their actions is totally vigilantism

        .Citizens extracting their own revenge defines vigilantism, as you know perfectly well. Continue to object to creepshots, but please stop claiming this is not a lawless, revenge-based action:

        A vigilante is a private individual (or group of individuals) who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority.

        You are correct in one thing – this can’t be a vigilante action because there is no law against taking anonymous pictures of people in public and posting them to the internet. We’re not talking upskirt, no cameras-in-changing-rooms, just the same thing you would see walking down any public street.

        The doxing of individuals is far and away creepier than any waist-down photo of someone in tight pants, and I will never look at your posts the same way again.

        • wysinwyg

          There is no “law enforcement” here.  No one broke the law.  No one is taking the law into their own hands.  Words and actions are being associated with the people responsible for those words and actions — as it should be in a free society.  If you’re so sure these guys aren’t doing anything wrong why do you have such a problem with them taking responsibility for what they did?

          Again, if you’re not going to argue that say, NYT reporting on Blagovich (for one random example) before conviction and sentencing is “vigilantism” then you can’t argue that this is vigilantism either. Publishing public details about people acting in public just doesn’t qualify. That is, in fact, the substance of your argument about why the people taking the photographs aren’t doing anything wrong. It cuts both ways.

          Justify your moralistic use of terms like “revenge” and “vigilantism”. How is pointing out the identities of people posting pictures “revenge”?

          Aggregating public information that was voluntarily posted on the internet to identify the source of speech or action is much less creepy than stalking and photographing women. If you disagree I’d like an argument as to why.

        • novium

          What law enforcement? There’s no law being enforced. No penalties. Nothing but aggregating what had already- voluntarily!- been made public.

        • wysinwyg

           Incidentally, “vigilantism” used to refer to a bunch of good old boys rounding up a posse and stringing someone from a tree.  I think you’re debasing the word just a teensy bit doing your Chicken Little routine here.

  • Quiche de Resistance

    If the subject’s anonymity is protected, why is this wrong?

    FYI I have a gut feel it’s wrong but I think it’d be worthwhile to discuss this.

    • Brainspore

      If the subject’s anonymity is protected, why is this wrong?

      If the contributors don’t think the practice is wrong then why do they call them “creepshots?” For that matter, why be so secretive about doing it at all? If it’s a legitimate, respectable form of self-expression then it shouldn’t really matter if your subject or friends or significant others find out about it, right?

      • http://burntheflag.ca Jardine

        It’s only a legitimate, respectable form of self-expression if the photos are of famous people and published in a tabloid.

        • Brainspore

          For the life of me, I could never figure out why millions of people around the world seem to be so interested in looking at poorly composed, badly lit photos of topless celebrities when there are already plenty of attractive people who are more than willing to pose for nude photo shoots.

          • Quiche de Resistance

            But Lindsey Lohan’s vuvla!!!

        • C W

          I’d love it if people did the same to those who peep in the windows of famous peoples’ houses looking for moments of privacy.

      • Mantissa128

        With all due respect, that’s not an argument. I wonder the same things as Quiche, posting an anonymous picture of someone’s butt in yoga pants is not the same as publicly posting someone’s personal information on the internet. This is vigilantism, it’s wrong, and two wrongs don’t make it right.

        • wysinwyg

          Let’s suppose the woman in yoga pants caught the guy taking a picture, pointed at him, and said something like “Hey, this guy is a pervert!”  Would that be vigilantism?  If not, I don’t see how doxing these assholes is either.   Could you do a better job of explaining why you think so?

          • Mantissa128

            Wow, what a poor analogy. How about she screams out his real name, address, and phone number over and over again until everyone around can copy it down?

            Is the guy doing something wrong soley because the woman objects? Is he doing something wrong solely because you object? Can I publish your personal information here @wysinwyg:disqus, because I disagree with you vehemently? That’s an acceptable thing to do in your world, right?

            Do you think it’s fair to instantly punish someone to any degree whatsoever because you, personally, object to what they are doing? Welcome to what vigilantism means.

            Also, I’d like to repeat the critical part here: anonymous photos. A published photo of you from the waist down that nobody recognizes is not a violation of your privacy the way publishing someone’s contact information is. I wouldn’t live in your crazy world for anything.

          • wysinwyg

            Wow, what a poor justification for calling this “vigilantism”. 

            Is the guy doing something wrong soley because the woman objects? Is he doing something wrong solely because you object?

            Obviously not.  Please explain to me how what these guys did isn’t wrong.  Should be good for a laugh.

            Can I publish your personal information here  , because I disagree with you vehemently?

            I did it for you upthread.  Go ahead, publish whatever you like.  I’m not ashamed or afraid of standing behind what I say and do with my real-life meatspace identity.  BTW, the fact that you’re getting so histrionic about the importance of preserving anonymity for these assholes is a pretty good indication that you know already that what they’re doing is wrong.

            Do you think it’s fair to instantly punish someone to any degree whatsoever because you, personally, object to what they are doing? Welcome to what vigilantism means.

            No, actually it doesn’t.  Try looking it up in a dictionary or something.  It doesn’t apply here.  You’re also stretching the notion of “punishment” about as far as it could possibly go.  We’re talking about human beings being held responsible for the things they say and do.  Not punishing them, but holding them responsible.  I fail to see where anyone has proposed “punishing” them except by public censure.  If they’re not ashamed of what they did then why should pointing out that they did those things constitute “punishment”? 

            Also, I’d like to repeat the critical part here: anonymous photos. A published photo of you from the waist down that nobody recognizes is not a violation of your privacy the way publishing someone’s contact information is. I wouldn’t live in your crazy world for anything.

            Taking inappropriate photographs of women in public to post online is a violation of those women’s privacy.  Furthermore, that violation is taking place in meatspace.  That’s much more serious to me than the fact that a bunch of adolescent assholes engaging in antisocial behavior on the internet take responsibility for their words and actions.  The latter I think is only correct; if they don’t think it’s bad to take and post the photos then they shouldn’t think it’s bad to have their names and identities tied to those actions.  If they do think it’s bad then why the fuck are they doing it in the first place?  Frankly, I don’t want anyone who believes in the unlimited right to be an asshole without social consequences to live in my “crazy” world so feel free to do something about it.

          • Antinous / Moderator

            Moderator note: Stop pissing contest now.

  • anrs

     Um, sorry, no, this is not about freedom of expression. The creeps are free to express themselves by posting creepy photos with accompanying creepy commentary that they know perfectly well is likely to make the women in the photos feel uncomfortable, or worse. They are free to do that. No-one is saying they should be arrested and go to jail. Everyone is free to be an arsehole. And everyone else is free to point at the arseholes and point out what massive arseholes they are and publicly shame them as much as possible, because that is how freedom of expression works.

    • Aaron H

      I do agree with you on this.
      Freedom of speech is a right, but freedom from public shaming for saying / doing stupid things is NOT — that’s how we regulate it, as a society.

      The creepy_pics subreddit was taken down, voluntarily, by the moderator who feared being outed. I don’t see a problem here. If Tumblr wants to be dumb, whatever — go register a domain name and host the site in WP or something (predditors.com has apparently already been registered and points to the jezebel article in question). As long as you aren’t obtaining images illegally, fair use doctrine should support the use of any publicly available photos / information.

      One of the moderators was allegedly physically accosted after being outed, which in and of itself is NOT COOL, however we have laws and processes to deal with that, and he should pursue those.

      • WastedJoker

        I thought the claims of physical assault had been debunked.

      • C W

        “One of the moderators was allegedly physically accosted”

        No, they didn’t. It was a fib, and you’re perpetuating the troll.

    • http://www.ikaink.net Itsumishi

      Actually, in many cases those sorts of photos are illegal and the people should be arrested.

      Check out the California Penal Code on the matter: 
      j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.

      So yeah. I’m saying those people should be arrested.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/CVPEH7RGNSFRDKMQEYQ6SKC4CA Doug

        I disapprove of creepshots.  But I looked at the first page (now back up under http://www.reddit.com/r/CreepSquad and I didn’t see pictures that would fall within the CPC.  I don’t like it and I don’t think it represents Reddit or men very well, but I am forced to put up with great number of things I don’t like, and this ranks pretty low on that list.

        • http://twitter.com/ethicalcannibal Ethical Cannibal

          I bet it would rank higher on your list if your mother called you crying about how she found her FB pics were taken and posted on this site, or if someone got a picture of her all creepshot like when she was dressed up for her anniversary dinner with your father. 

          • DataShade

            Um.  I like the idea of the rule of law, not so big a fan of “whatever super-upsets me the most at the moment should be prosecuted, even if the law has to be stretched or distorted to make it fit.”

            That said: I’m in favor of doxing the /r/creepsquad submittards.  The conceit appears to be “photos are art, art is speech, speech is protected,” and the appropriate response to disgusting or offensive speech is more speech, not more laws.

        • novium

          What about the Video Voyeuerism Prevention Act, which forbids video recording or photographing a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, buttocks, or female breasts under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy?

          • Chipsa

            No expectation of privacy in public, and requires them to be naked or just covered by underwear. So it covers taking an up skirt picture, but not a picture of a girl covertly from behind.

          • novium

            What? It doesn’t say you have to be naked or in your underwear for it to apply. It says you can’t video or photograph someone’s “private areas”  Specifically, it defines “private area of the individual” as “the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.  Secondly, there is still a degree of reasonable expectation of privacy: the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— (b) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

            SO, yeah. Upskirting? Illegal. 

          • Chipsa

            I’m not disputing that upskirt pics are illegal. However, not all, or even a majority of the pics that I saw in creepshots when this first blew up were upskirts. They were mostly covertly taken pictures of attractive women. Yes, they were sometimes framed of their privates, but not: “”the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The definition requires that there be no garments blocking the view of those listed areas to apply. A pic of someone’s ass from behind (as opposed to underneath), generally won’t manage to fit the legal definition required to be unlawful under that act, failing both that test, and 1801b5b (you’d expect to see the outer fabric of the skirt in public).

  • $28084830

    I have mixed feelings about predditor. As the father of a young daughter and a long-time reddit user, reddit’s tolerance for child porn, “creepers,” etc is sometimes nauseating. And I’m all in favor of publically outing people doing or distributing child porn. But I’m not so sure I think it’s fair to out some 19 year old kid for a single submission to a NSFW subreddit.

    Also, it has always surprised me how much personal info people reveal on reddit. Early on, I attracted a stalker who went back through my entire comment history and came very close to identifying me. He commented on the kind of car I drive and the school my daughter goes to. Since then, I’ve always created a new reddit account every few weeks just to avoid accumulating any  revealing information. I guess people become attached to their “karma” and don’t want to give up their accounts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Pyster Bruce Landwaster

    “reasonable expectation of privacy” is a funny thing. Does that exist in a public setting where some of these shots are taken? As lame as it may seem we may need laws that specifically address this issue.

    • Brainspore

      IMHO it crosses an important threshold when a camera captures something not easily seen by a casual passerby. Even in a public setting it’s pretty reasonable to assume that you won’t be subjected to strategically placed hidden cameras for the purpose of sexual exploitation (i.e. upskirt shots).

    • foobar

      I’m not sure how we could do that. If it’s illegal to publish non-consensual photos of people, you’re effectively banning a wide swath of public photography because it will be impossible to get a shot without people incidentally in it.

    • DataShade

      There are already (quoted often in this thread) laws that qualify for “upskirt” type photos.  

      The big problem with your proposal – legislative solution – is that to file a complaint, civil or criminal, you need standing.  A random woman at a yoga class is probably not going to go home, turn on reddit, and go looking for the creepiest NSFW subreddits she can find.  (You might not need to demonstrate standing for an underage photo target, I think the state automatically has standing for that, but you’d still have to demonstrate under-agedness, no?)

      It won’t prevent the photos from being posted, it won’t prevent harm to the victims, and it won’t be applicable to 100% of creepy photos.

      “Doxing the creeps” is social solution to what is, after all, a social problem.

  • Ashley Yakeley

    /r/creepshots is (was) pretty creepy even if it’s not illegal. On the other hand, no-one cares about TubeCrush; why is that?

    • Ashley Yakeley
      • DataShade

        Answer: yes, I do indeed regret it.  Not nearly as much as I’d feared, so there’s that.

        Also, does it change your opinion (or do you think it would change the opinion of the writer of that op-ed) to know that, from what I saw of TubeCrush, most of the submitters had male names?

        • Ashley Yakeley

          The gendered submitter names seemed about 50/50 to me?

          • DataShade

            I jumped to a random page and skimmed a few more pages’ worth, I didn’t check the whole site, so I could’ve had a bad sample.  I may also be weighting the results improperly in my mind, since all the ass/crotch-focused shots I saw were from male (or unisex, I suppose; cognitive bias on my part to assume monosyllabic “Sam” is a Samuel and not a Samantha).

            Still, 50/50 is even better, in a way.  As long as everyone’s complaining the same amount…  http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/777

    • DataShade

      I don’t know what TubeCrush is.  Will I regret clicking your link?

      Bear in mind, I’m already in 100% agreement with this: http://imgur.com/WfvZ4

      • Ashley Yakeley

        The internet may be uncensored, but it is a heavily mediated representation of the human condition.

        • DataShade

          Yes, but if some “unjustly” mediated person gets booted off one site, he can always go start his own or (more likely) join the service set up by some previously-booted person.

  • glittertrash

    Oh my god, the whiteknighting going on here, of men flocking to defend poor, innocent “just one mistake” hypothetical 19 year old creepers is hilarious/depressing. Woe, woe, won’t anyone think of the poor creepers who have only victimised a few women, who probably deserved it anyway? How tragic it would be if that hypothetical 19 year old creeper’s life was made slightly uncomfortable for a short time by a public backlash about his creepy behaviour!

    • Gary Noble

      Or maybe it’s more a case of people following the maxim of ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’

      Don’t equate being uncomfortable with censorship and vigilantism with agreeing with the creepers.  It’s unfair and intellectually dishonest.

      • wysinwyg

        Don’t equate censorship and vigilantism with publicly identifying the creepers.  Don’t equate free speech with some completely fictional right to anonymity while doing creepy, immoral things.  It’s unfair and intellectually dishonest.

    • wysinwyg

       Yeah, I’ve never seen the word “vigilantism” tossed around so casually.  It’s like all the anonymous assholes on the internet got together and had a meeting about how to spin this.

  • embryoconcepts

    So….Predditors is down already?