Reddit Troll Now Out of Work
The Reddit troll outed by Gawker, it now out of work. He was fired by his financial services company, leaving him jobless and his disabled wife without health insurance. The firing came not even 24 hours after the story hit on Gawker. Reddit General Manager Erik Martin has gone on to say that banning Gawker links from Reddit was a mistake and has re-allowed it. ViolentAcrez had this to say:
“I’m eligible [for insurance], but COBRA is very expensive. Who can afford to pay 5 times as much for insurance at the very moment they lose their income? Only rich folks can afford COBRA. I have maybe 3 weeks pay in the bank. I just hope I can hold out a month. My wife hasn’t been able to work for over a year, and our savings will last about 3 weeks, not considering the current lack of health insurance.”
Maybe there’s a subreddit for out of work trolls that he can jump into.
Read more at dailydot.com.
Unemployment is an option too.. Guess being on the dole is a problem tho. And he can get medicare Bennys.. See this is how easy it is to change ur political party when u have a situation that's being discussed. I do agree he was a bit of a slim. So i dont know what I feel but it's not my issue to figure out.. I think his job is a dick since it was his personal life unless they feel he was doing it while working but I think a warning would be more deserving... But meh good luck to him but having a disabled wife and seeking teen jerk material sounds like he didn't give a fuck about that situation either..
Does freedom of speech or expression really apply to a faceless poster on a msg. board. I question that you can cry fowl when you were posting things that you wouldn't in your own name stand behind and then be surprised when your called out on it. I see freedom of speech as someone having an opinion and standing up in front of people and voicing that opinion and putting there name to it, not namelessly throwing out questionably illegal material and hoping no one ever finds out who did it. 2nd I really doubt that Reddit has any legal obligation to make sure that they keep your identity private.
Trials and tribulations on the rapidly shrinking internet frontier. On one hand you'd hope an anonymous poster can stay anonymous forever, but on the other he admittedly "trusted" the wrong people with his real name and allowed the thin line between himself and his username get penetrated by this journalist with a hard-on for reddit. He played the Game of Trolls and he lost.
Sue the Gawker Reporter--it is completely their fault hes out of work. Some random asshole reporter uses his personal vendetta to attack Reddit and burns this guy in the process. I dont give a fuck what he did online, he never cost anyone their job.
I am trying to figure out a reason to support this guy since I (like most people) have had "questionable" internet habits. However I can't think of one. Perhaps he can learn a lesson?
Probably should have checked that morals clause in his employment contract.
Only 3 weeks pay in the bank, probably should have been working harder to build up your savings instead of spending so much time trolling Reddit.
Fuck this guy and his fat ass wife. I read the article and he's a scumbag that "enjoyed riling people up". Before the internet a man like this had to go around and rile people up in person, but it didn't happen much because eventually people will kick your ass for fucking with them. Now the internet lets you be a dick anonymously, and we all of the sudden feel like this is an unalienable right? I hope every other internet troll is seeing this so they know, yeah you can be a dick online but there's always a chance you'll get found out and have to face the people you've been torturing.
If you feel bad for this guy, just pretend one of the underage girls he exploited was the one to out him, not Gawker.
Ohh well maybee he should ask elaine to write him a check.... and theres all wayzz food stamps lololz
I don't think he should've been fired, because what he does on the internet doesn't have anything to do with his job. However, if you're going to be this massive reddit troll, then talk about how you went down on your teenage stepdaughter, wipe as many of your tracks away as you can. Kill the dots that connect you to your real name.
I hope he sues the shit out of Gawker and his former employer. Think of people like Jim Norton, if he wasn't able to make a career out of all his twisted fetishes and stories and perverted sense of humor it would be very unlikely he'd be making a living right now.
Also this does not bode well for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, people are more likely to express controversial opinions and ideas if they believe there is some level of anonymity (after all sites like reddit in fact sell themselves on the idea that there is anonymous exchange).
There is no evidence that he broke any laws, he is not on trial or even being investigated and while support the rights of private enterprise I also feel that this boils down to a lack of legal rights being extended to the internet as it has replaced the traditional forms of media but has still yet to be recognized as a media entity and as and also virtual property/privacy rights have barely been considered. It's easy to target one person of unpopular opinion but it's those people that the legal and social precedents against all people are formed.
If he can get his hands on some Kate Upton upskirts he wouldn't have to work another day in his life.
The lack of empathy for this man is frightening. There have been a lot of horrible things said on the Interrobang. Put yourself in this man's shoes and have some compassion. I understand that what this guy did was pure sickness, but to lose your livelihood over something you posted online is just sad.
@SpeedKills Free speech absolutely applies to a "faceless poster" as Ron pointed out on the show. All dictators and tyrants have something in common, they do not like free anonymous speech. Anonymous trolls are a price we have to pay for living in a society with free speech.
@cal5000 This isn't the Gawker reporters fault. If the information was out there to get then it's the trolls own fault. Your real name should never be on the internet on any account. Barring your bank account and bills.... but those are supposed to be secure and if your information was leaked that way there would be serious legal implications.
Bottom line. Don't put your name on the internet. Anywhere.
@cal5000 sue yourself for being such an internet troll and doing things that are completely fucked up. I don't feel everyone shoudl have to put their names on everything on the internet, but if you are going to be a fuckwad like this guy and put all sorts of crazy shit on the internet you had better be ready to reap your consequences. sorry, rot in piss you shitdick troll. see you next to a 55 gallon drum fire soon.
@BadNewsJeff He wasn't actually torturing anyone or riling them up, he simply created forums for topics Reddit didn't like and let them rile themselves up as Reddit is well known of being full of reactionary douchebags. He was not harassing or bullying anyone but simply letting people make themselves angry. It's like creating a shitty youtube movie that bad mouths Mohammed and letting his unreasonable followers freak out about it.
@Docintoxicated As an employer, I have the right to decide who represents me. Lil' Jimmy doesn't pretend to be someone else. In fact, people employ him because he's who he is. The market is there. If this fellow wants to, maybe he can enter the cringe-humor market and see if he is able to make it. No one is censoring him.
@Docintoxicated Doesn't bode well for free exchange of ideas? You support his right to post whatever he wants but don't support the right of gawker to post what they want? Who's trying to censor who?
@Docintoxicated If he sues gawker, he's going to get nothing. They didn't say anything libelous about him, nor are they directly responsible for him getting fired. He can sure as hell sue his employer, and he'd probably win.
@jerkstoresean you mean "take care of him"?
@mightyhorserox You do know that he spent much of his waking time refusing empathy to others? Trolling jews, gays, blacks? Karma is rough. Maybe he can come back.
@mightyhorserox I feel for him... but there's an easy way to stay anonymous on the internet. Don't give out your dumb name. To anyone. Ever.
The stupidity equals out the empathy and everything is alright in the world again.
@mightyhorserox If I employed this guy, I'd support his right to free speech, but I wouldn't want him in my office. There's nothing wrong with society being against anti-social behavior, so long as society respects an individual's rights. So fuck him.
OK, but how about you don't complain that your employer didn't agree with what you were doing and fires you.
@dpiller21 Its the internet. Pretending your feelings have some kind of weight or that you or anyone gets to decide that unpopular sentiments earn you the right to have you livelihood taken away because of some assholes opinion of your behavior not at work but on an anonymous website, is bullshit.
If this reporter had acquired a lawyers briefcase and published the contents that cost someone their job--the reporter would be liable.
All that other crybaby bullshit about trolls and who says what is irrelevant.
The editor at Gawker shouldve fucking known better.
"I do my job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in my spare time." His words, not mine. He started a subreddit called r/picsofdeadkids and r/jailbait. I do not feel sorry for this guy. He's not being thrown in jail, which I would not agree with. He's just been let go by his company when they found out what a dick he is. No employer owes you a job (and I'm a democrat). It sucks for him that he got outed but them's the breaks. These same people that want to be anonymous dickheads also want to steal music and movies anonymously, which I also think is bullshit.
" As an employer, I have the right to decide who represents me." you do but within legal limits if you were to say make a racist statement and then the next day refuse to hire a qualified member of the race you insulted and it was to get out you would be up for a discrimination suit.
"In fact, people employ him because he's who he is." Jimmy is a singularity, he is a point far beyond extrapolation. He is an amazingly talented individual who also happens to be biologically hardwired with certain controversial sexual interests, it's very safe to guess that the people who enjoy his humor and/or the same fetishes are not as comically talented as him and would be unable to do the same yet they still have to make a living and their interests do not preclude them being model employees. Employers don't need to make the guy who likes to be pissed on by hookers the face of their company but if these people keep their personal lives from interfering with the quality of their work there is no reason they should be fired.
"No one is censoring him." Not true, if you take away a man's living and scar his reputation publicly for something that was not illegal and not interfering with his work you are censoring him by sending the message that if he continues to state his views he will be cut off from the means of supporting himself. It's not a "hey you can't say that" but censorship is rarely a blatant statement.
"Lil' Jimmy doesn't pretend to be someone else." well actually, Uncle Paul, Edgar, Chippah..... Of course Jimmy is a singularity, he is able to turn his experience into humor, most people are unable to do that in a way that will allow them to make a living. Believe me the market for stand up comics is a niche market. Of course it took Jimmy along time to build an audience and still he deals with idiotic humorless kill joys constantly.
@zel I did not say I do not support Gawker's freedom to post whatever they want, that was something you inferred. What I do not support is Gawker's lack of integrity and misrepresentation of a purely fabricated story which should be looked into as a case of libel as they are representing themselves a news organization. Freedom of expression is not freedom from liability, persecution, and liability, VA has his share and Gawker has had theirs coming for quite some time since for years they have purely fabricated, exaggerated, and sensationalized the things they post and it is about time someone calls Adrien Chen on it as what they post does have very real fall out. Say what you want but the minute you misrepresent something as fact under the guise of "news" that leads to a real world consequence you need to be called on it.
@yotaruvegeta @BadNewsJeff "If you want to be a troll, you might want to reconsider becoming an infamous one" see that's the interesting thing about Reddit is that a user can go from complete obscurity to "OH MAH GAWD!" witch hunt in the matter of a day. The subs VA started were so minor that they were relatively unknown, however VA got caught up in Adrien Chen's vendetta against Reddit so Chen as usual decides to troll reactionary angry Redditors onto his site to boost his hits.
@Docintoxicated @BadNewsJeff People need to know that the internet was never completely anonymous. It's just that it's gotten much easier for less skilled people to follow bread crumbs back to your door.
I don't think that someone's acting the fool should be held over them, but you also shouldn't act the fool and think that you haven't left yourself open to consequences. If you want to be a troll, you might want to reconsider becoming an infamous one. The bigger you are, the more people who could potentially take you down.
"Oh, I'm just having fun, pushing buttons" Sorry, but some people take that shit to heart, they make it their purpose to expose you.
Again, sorry the guy had to lose his job, but he's been living the fun troll life for a while. Anyway, it could be worse. He could live in the UK, and end up in jail.
@yotaruvegeta @Docintoxicated @BadNewsJeff The tactic is a strategic one, there is no need for a conflict, in fact it is a tactic also heavily used in seduction and marketing. Why was he using it, "for the lulz" one would say. After all there is no constitutional amendment that says people are to granted freedom from offense. You're probably right, he probably would do anything for attention just as Adrien Chen has done. My main crux with the issue is not based on VA or Gawker but the ambiguous nature of privacy on the internet, on one hand there is intellectual property rights and where there is property there is a private right governed to it the question that needs to be clearly defined is where does privacy and property begin and end in digital properties and what are the criteria for what can be considered private property on the internet. How far can employers delve into your personal life and what sort of internet information can they fire you for or use? The truth is the concept that the internet isn't really that anonymous is a rather new one, should a 17 year old kid who was sex chatting on aol in 1998 and throwing around racial slurs in a friendly chat be fired when someone discovers that when he's 30? The issue is the internet has longevity far beyond what is within what a human can relate to on daily basis and we need time to figure this out and regulate how these everlasting records can be used by individuals, the government, and employers so as to have a reasonable system in which everyone knows what the legal and social expectations are explicitly.
@Docintoxicated @BadNewsJeff So what "war" is this guy taking part in? He's getting a rise out of people for laughs. That's not a war tactic, that's swatting at a hornet's nest. I don't care for people who are outraged at the drop of a hat, but this guy is going out of his way to annoy people. He absolutely is riling people up. Yes, people shouldn't feed a troll, but this dude would probably do anything for attention.
@BadNewsJeff "No employer owes you a job (and I'm a democrat). It sucks for him that he got outed but them's the breaks"
I agree with this point. But also believe if that what you do in your private life if it does not effect your job is not a legitimate reason to fire someone. I simply think of comedians, if Anthony wasn't Anthony and got caught posting any of his hilarious racist jokes there is a good chance he would be fired. If Jimmy worked for a bank and it was found out in his spare time he enjoyed being urinated on chances are he'd be out of a job no matter how well he did his job. The question is where is the line between your constitutional right to privacy end and where does your employer's discretion begin? This is a question that has yet to be answered legally in a way that satisfies the concerns of internet based media.
He says "riling people up" but he was really just let people rile themselves up not actively going out to find people and rile them up, those who wanted to get angry came to him. He simply set a trap and let the most reactionary fall into it. It's similar to when Legendary Chinese army leader Liu Bei cast a boat into the water and let his enemies fire their arrows into it and then retrieved the boat downstream and took the arrows for his army, he did not force anyone to shoot an empty boat but when they carelessly did he reaped the benefits.
@Docintoxicated The difference is in their job. If VA worked for Reddit, and they fired him, you're right. But he didn't. His personal proclivities for offending people and bring intentional hurt could possibly damage his place of employment.
VA wasn't doing it to entertain anyone but himself. Censorship only applies to our government.
and of course Chen pretending to have cancer
Clarification of the facts:
A bit of about VA:
Now for the libel: Libel is not necessarily as clean cut as people think a lot of it has to do with not direct accusations but positioning. For example: "On the phone, Michael Brutsch insisted he is not a pedophile but was unapologetic about Jailbait."
The words "pedophile" and "unapologetic" do not directly accuse him but are positioned in a way to make the reader infer that he is a pedophile but denying it. When in reality he is merely a troll doing things to piss off Reddit.
Now take the same sentence but replace the name ""On the phone, Mitt Romney insisted he is not a pedophile"
There is no evidence Mitt is a pedo and this is a true statement but it is also a statement that one could infer he is defensive and denying allegations casting an air of suspicion.
Or this statement which is literally unverifiable "Violentacrez and his fellow moderators worked hard to make sure every girl on jailbait was underage, diligently deleting any photos whose subjects seemed older than 16 or 17"
While it cannot be proven that VA did this this statement was published anyway.
Next they do not separate the actions of the individual from the actions of the individuals of the subreddit he created, in fact they make them seem one in the same.
"Violentacrez decided to create a safe space for people sexually attracted to underage girls to share their photo stashes......Jailbait was the online equivalent of systematized street harassment"
This is the equivalent of blaming Ron and Fez for everything posted on the Ibang.
I did not say he should win a case of libel but this is a case that should be made simply because there is a tremendous amount of legal ambiguity on the internet that needs to addressed and this is an excellent case to bring up these questions.
@Docintoxicated Where's the libel and fabrication?
@Memphis Mack you did a poor job. "so fuck him" is showing a lack of empathy. I can't make it any clearer than that.