Why did Reddit turn a blind eye to Violentacrez’s troll behavior?

 

 

Why did Reddit turn a blind eye to Violentacrezs troll behavior?

Image via news.com.au

Reddit’s Violentacrez goes on CNN to defend why he acted like a troll.

Violentacrez and Reddit’s argument that it’s all about free speech. Really?

Reddit’s Violentacrez fired, now accepting paypal donations thanks.

Gawker exposes pervert and troll Violentacrez of Reddit. Reddit now bans Gawker.

Since Adrian Chen of gawker exposed reddit feudal lord Violentacrez as Michael Brutsch, a prominent troll and reddit user and moderator questions have been buzzing how is that Conde Nast, the owner’s of the social media outlet which these days boasts upwards of 3 billion page views a month did nothing to expose the self confessed predator?

According to Erik Martin, reddit‘s general manager he has attempted to take a neutral stance (except that is when he feels like getting involved) and had long ago decided not to interfere in the way the site was being self regulated by its moderators, even if it meant that some of the moderators were operating in a way that was hazardous, and even putting innocent individual’s lives at risk to protect some vague idea of freedom of speech.

Telling buzzfeedrecently: “We have 10,000 active subreddits, and over 100,000 total. And anyone can create a subreddit, the person who creates it is sort of the default moderator, and they can add other moderators, who can then add other moderators,”

“We don’t get in involved unless it has someting to do with rules.”

Of course freedom of speech should anyone try to tell you otherwise does not come with a general waiver to say and express whatever passes on one’s mind but to actually also own up to saying such things and be willing to risk legal ramifications should one’s comments, actions, thoughts lead to damages. Something sadly the folk at reddit have been keen to overlook to maintaintheir image of being good for the boy’s network and all about teamwork and vetting against others’ views it didn’t like whilst all the while insisting they were all about freedom of expression, assuming your thoughts and attitudes coincided with the apparatchik in place.

But sadly one has to wonder if at the end of the day the keeping quiet courtesy of Erik Martin and reddit’s owners, Conde Nast were forced to show their hand once other media outlets (and certainly not the ones owned by Conde Nast thank you very much) found the courage to out this barbaric behavior that trolls like Violentacrez ( have no regrets of ever pulling off (Michael Brutsch was central in the running of almost child porn subreddit, jailbait and then a ringleader with creepshots).

In the end, there is a lot of money at stake with large ad revenue (yes it’s such a farce when reddit complains against other media outlets when it is the biggest enabler of faux pas behavior in order to make its money stash) sloshing around and little wonder that reddit or Conde Nast (who have yet to issue a statement about this whole fiasco) simply pretending to pay lip service whilst bullies like Violentacrez went about abetted by reddit and Conde Nast continuing their nasty bag of tricks.

Yep so much for freedom of speech when one fails to acknowledge the ethical and real life damage they are causing by remaining behind anonymous alter egos whilst silently collecting the big bags of money that keep rolling as more curious onlookers come to the roost.

  • http://twitter.com/JaneBang Jane Bang 

    Grammer is slipping

  • Spelling Nazi

    Complains about *grammer…spells *grammar wrong

  • Turanga Leela

    What the hell is wrong with you? Please take that young girls picture down or at the very least blur out her face. Shame on you !

  • YourSaintedMother

    WTF Paedo, are you just going to repeat the filth that he posted all day? “Oooh it’s so scandalous, look at the pictures, LOOK AT THEM”

    She’s a fucking minor. Did she give permission for that picture up there?

    You’re fucking sick.

  • scallywag

    Before we all get hysterical. The image posted was that of a minor smiling wearing a bikini. The image itself was not sexualized or particularly provocative or implying anything. It was used to drive home a point, furthermore please bear in mind the context of how violentacrez and other reddit users used such images and how in this instance it was a single image that clearly never sexualized anyone. That said not to confuse readers such as yourself who may have mistook the image literally in the wrong context I have chosen to take it down.

  • scallywag

    see above remark by me referencing image. thx.

  • Turanga Leela

    Thank you for doing the right thing. Pictures like that, thoughtlessly propagated, can do a great deal of harm as the Amanda Todd suicide has taught us.