On Forbes, Tim Worstall uses syphilis and penicillin to argue that technology changes which social mores are considered “acceptable” to explain why so many Redditors seemed to find Violentacrez’ actions defensible in his article We Need a New Set of Manners for the Internet.
Excremental Virtue explains this “if I can do it, it’s permissible” lapse of logic by saying “Posing for photos constitutes an act for which any and all retaliation and “use” is fair, no matter how private their original contexts—including ex-partners circulating erotic photos, including photos taken of women unawares, including men commenting on and masturbating to them.”
Aaron Brady makes an excellent point in his article Creepshots and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of ‘Free Speech’ – “when people invoke “free speech” to defend a person’s right to take pictures of unwilling women and circulate those pictures on the internet, they are saying that it is okay to do so.”
Cranberryzero on I Heart Chaos demonstrates that he has no clue what he’s talking about when he says “when you’re a big enough troll to become both a hero and villain on a site like Reddit, you must be doing something right. The Redditor that goes by the name of Violentacrez has been a Reddit fixture for some time now, operating anonymously… that is until Gawker went and tracked him down.Thoughts? Was it right to out him? At first I thought so, but now, not so much.”
Over on The Verge lots of commenters are rushing to Reddit’s defense, flubbing details and feebly alleging that Violentacrez was planted by Gawker to make Reddit look bad.