He may have used those words, but they aren't 'meaningless', they do have value. They represent that some group of people that he considered peers or an audience appreciated what he was doing. And so by having a large amount of karma he felt good, that's not meaningless.
I could not agree more, I know from past experience that being part of a group of peers whom you feel value your input can be a very rewarding experience, to say that it is meaningless would be to say that he didn't care at all. They have a meaning, both to him, as what he then felt was a valued individual in the community; and also to me.
It's very easy for people to say that Reddit karma is pointless and has no value to people, but when I look at myself I see myself making comments on another website (http://hackerne.ws) where by, if the other users feel I have made a contribution which added something to the discussion, they reward me by clicking on an up arrow next to my name, it's like they're giving me a virtual thumbs up.
So yes, it made him feel good and it's important to feel appreciated by the audience to whom you perform. Feel free to take away my hard earned karma if you disagree, but bear in mind that it will probably make me die a little inside, at least, for a few minutes, before the rush of internet-adrenaline wears off.
Yes, it's certainly meaningful when the DailyDot's "most important Redditor of the year" is a racist, sexist, pedophile. Says a lot about Reddit that they supported and profited from him (and people like him).
I've read some comments in other places to the effect of complaining about free speech rights. As I always say, everyone has the right to say/post what they want (within legal boundaries) ... but everyone else is 100% free to react to what you say/post as they see fit. So the fact that he was fired is that freedom being exercised.
Gawker's behavior is shocking, not in terms of free speech, but in terms of journalistic ethics. This story is, in the most literal sense, fabricated news.
The point of the article wasn't that there existed trolls on forums getting a kick out of being as offensive as possible. It can be summed up as "Hi Brutsch, I'm about to try my best to ruin your life, how do you feel about that?". The article was about the article itself (more precisely the previsible consequences of the article's publication). This is trolling, not journalism nor any self-respecting form of news reporting, and the guy who did that stands on no higher moral grounds than Brutsch.
At least Brutsch had no illusion about the value and ethics of what he was doing, wasn't purposefully ruining someone's life, and wasn't making money out of it.
So neither of them likely broke any US law, but the filthiest asshole isn't Brutsch IMO.
It all came down to Reddit members and mods protecting a friend and influential person of the Reddit community. It even spilled over to HN where every Gawker article was flagged heavily due to HN affiliation... I'm surprised this one is on the front page.
"Mr. Brutsch, who was fired from his job following Gawker’s expose, is now soliciting programming work in the porn industry."
I don't know the porn industry all that well, but it does seem slightly unlikely they'd want someone with a history of pre-18 sexualisation on the team given how hard they have to fight to stay legal.
I did a bit of work in porn for a while back (when I was young and needed the money).
In one of the description of a video the editor wrote "was 17 just a day ago" to "barely 17" making the mistake to not change the number as he changed it. The forums blew up, complaints started pouring in and it was one heck of a day. The description was online for 20 minutes at most and complaints continued to trickle in for a few days after.
That being said some porn distributors wouldn't mind hiring the guy since his name would most likely not appear anywhere. It really depends on how good he is... and if he's on reddit all day long that's probably not a good thing either.
The porn industry is very well aware of the age of its performers. Pretty much any porn company will point you to its 18 USC Section 2257 record keeping (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257). As a random example, on the front page of the site www.bangbus.com there's the following text:
"All girls appearing on this website are 18 years or older. Click here for records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C 22557 Statement."
"Free Speech" is not relevant to this situation. Free speech rights are limits placed on the government. The only rights you have on Reddit are whatever rights Reddit grants you. And they are free to change those on a whim, or apply them as unfairly as they want.
The US Constitution describes how that human right is protected in the United States from the US Government.
This doesn't mean that Brutsch did anything right or wrong, it's just a description of how freedom of speech is different and embodied in culture and is not just some form of right given to us by the The First Amendment.
One very helpful side effect, however, was that he exposed Anderson Cooper for the integrity-free yellow journalist he is (at least for those paying close attention).
Huh? Did anyone's view of Cooper change over this stuff? I can't imagine anyone who had any respect for him before would change their mind over it, and anyone who would be upset about his "journalism" recently would never have had any respect for him in the first place.
It's not free speech, he was enabling stealing girls' pictures and posting for the internet to wank over. Free speech would be speaking out to advocate that, but actually doing that? We don't have complete freedom of action, and quite rightly so.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shanelja|13 years ago|reply
It's very easy for people to say that Reddit karma is pointless and has no value to people, but when I look at myself I see myself making comments on another website (http://hackerne.ws) where by, if the other users feel I have made a contribution which added something to the discussion, they reward me by clicking on an up arrow next to my name, it's like they're giving me a virtual thumbs up.
So yes, it made him feel good and it's important to feel appreciated by the audience to whom you perform. Feel free to take away my hard earned karma if you disagree, but bear in mind that it will probably make me die a little inside, at least, for a few minutes, before the rush of internet-adrenaline wears off.
[+] [-] watty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|13 years ago|reply
Why are those considered more meaningful than internet points?
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
Yes.
> Is it meaningless when the team you root for wins a world championship?
Very much yes.
> Or when Time names you Person of the Year?
They already did, and boy was it meaningless.
> Why are those considered more meaningful than internet points?
Some people don't consider them more meaningful.
And if you're the raldi that I think you are: That thing you worked on might have been bigger than you gave it credit for.
[+] [-] conradfr|13 years ago|reply
Rooting for a sport team : meaningless
Person of the Year : built your credibility, bring recognition etc
[+] [-] calibraxis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CodeCube|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fab13n|13 years ago|reply
The point of the article wasn't that there existed trolls on forums getting a kick out of being as offensive as possible. It can be summed up as "Hi Brutsch, I'm about to try my best to ruin your life, how do you feel about that?". The article was about the article itself (more precisely the previsible consequences of the article's publication). This is trolling, not journalism nor any self-respecting form of news reporting, and the guy who did that stands on no higher moral grounds than Brutsch.
At least Brutsch had no illusion about the value and ethics of what he was doing, wasn't purposefully ruining someone's life, and wasn't making money out of it.
So neither of them likely broke any US law, but the filthiest asshole isn't Brutsch IMO.
[+] [-] watty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicholassmith|13 years ago|reply
I don't know the porn industry all that well, but it does seem slightly unlikely they'd want someone with a history of pre-18 sexualisation on the team given how hard they have to fight to stay legal.
[+] [-] xutopia|13 years ago|reply
In one of the description of a video the editor wrote "was 17 just a day ago" to "barely 17" making the mistake to not change the number as he changed it. The forums blew up, complaints started pouring in and it was one heck of a day. The description was online for 20 minutes at most and complaints continued to trickle in for a few days after.
That being said some porn distributors wouldn't mind hiring the guy since his name would most likely not appear anywhere. It really depends on how good he is... and if he's on reddit all day long that's probably not a good thing either.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|13 years ago|reply
"All girls appearing on this website are 18 years or older. Click here for records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C 22557 Statement."
And that click here leads to http://help.bangbrosonline.com/2257.php
[+] [-] codva|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raldi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerrya|13 years ago|reply
The US Constitution describes how that human right is protected in the United States from the US Government.
This doesn't mean that Brutsch did anything right or wrong, it's just a description of how freedom of speech is different and embodied in culture and is not just some form of right given to us by the The First Amendment.
[+] [-] elliottcarlson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] papsosouid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Millennium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beedogs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|13 years ago|reply