Another troll news item

[Stella_Omega]

Last Wednesday afternoon I called Michael Brutsch. He was at the office of the Texas financial services company where he works as a programmer and he was having a bad day. I had just told him, on Gchat, that I had uncovered his identity as the notorious internet troll Violentacrez (pronounced Violent-Acres).

"It's amazing how much you can sweat in a 60 degree office," he said with a nervous laugh.

Judging from his internet footprint, Brutsch, 49, has a lot to sweat over. If you are capable of being offended, Brutsch has almost certainly done something that would offend you, then did his best to rub your face in it. His speciality is distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls, but as Violentacrez he also issued an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and exotic abominations yet unnamed, all on the sprawling online community Reddit. At the time I called Brutsch, his latest project was moderating a new section of Reddit where users posted covert photos they had taken of women in public, usually close-ups of their asses or breasts, for a voyeuristic sexual thrill. It was called "Creepshots." Now Brutsch was the one feeling exposed and it didn't suit him very well.

...

When I called Brutsch that Wednesday afternoon and told him I knew who he was, I was a little taken aback by how calm he remained during our intense but civil hour-long conversation. I had figured that a man whose hobby was saying horrible shit just to screw with people online would rise to some new horrible level when conditions on the ground actually called for it. Instead he pleaded with me in an affectless monotone not to reveal his name.

"My wife is disabled. I got a home and a mortgage, and if this hits the fan, I believe this will affect negatively on my employment," he said. "I do my job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in my spare time."

Unmasking Reddit’s Violentacrez, The Biggest Troll on the Web

 

[TinyBeth]

Wow, if you really respected your poor disabled wife, maybe DON'T moderate a forum of creepy photos of women taken against their knowledge.

 

[PennLady]

I am reading this article and as with so many other things, I am baffled. Some behaviors I just don't get.

And it doesn't make me any too inclined to go to Reddit, either.

 

[TxRad]

I am reading this article and as with so many other things, I am baffled. Some behaviors I just don't get.

And it doesn't make me any too inclined to go to Reddit, either.

Then the troll has won.

 

[Handley_Page]

How come he has all this time to play the troll when working at a Bank ?.

 

[PennLady]

Then the troll has won.

No, he hasn't. I wasn't going to go to Reddit anyway, and it had nothing to do with him. I don't do Twitter, or FourSquare, or Digg or any of the other news/social network sites either. I just don't have time. Whether I'd read this or not, I wasn't going to join Reddit. This article just makes me think I made the right decision.

How come he has all this time to play the troll when working at a Bank ?.

I wondered that myself. With a teenaged kid, a disabled wife and a job, how does he have this kind of time to find the pics, post them, moderate forums, etc? I don't really want to know. It's just one of those things that adds to the bafflement.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

I'm not a huge fan of unveiling anonymous internet people. It would have been fine if some sort of law enforcement person had unveiled his identify as a step in the process of prosecuting him for posting underage porn.* But it seems to me that he was "outed" simply because, in the author's opinion, he's an ass.

How many people on this site have suffered for similar reasons, simply because one poster on this site doesn't like them?

*Also, it's strange how the author equates posting underage porn to spewing misogynistic nonsense. One is criminal, with actual victims; the other is just annoying.

 

[PennLady]

I'm not a huge fan of unveiling anonymous internet people. It would have been fine if some sort of law enforcement person had unveiled his identify as a step in the process of prosecuting him for posting underage porn.* But it seems to me that he was "outed" simply because, in the author's opinion, he's an ass.

How many people on this site have suffered for similar reasons, simply because one poster on this site doesn't like them?

*Also, it's strange how the author equates posting underage porn to spewing misogynistic nonsense. One is criminal, with actual victims; the other is just annoying.

I'm not a big fan of it either, but this guy had blurred the lines of his online/real lives, as he himself said. Sounds like a number of people knew his alias and real name.

 

[LaRascasse]

I'm not a big fan of it either, but this guy had blurred the lines of his online/real lives, as he himself said. Sounds like a number of people knew his alias and real name.

One of my side jobs is tracing the IP addresses of guys like him. While I am not sure what he exactly did, even offences like being blatantly disrespectful of a forum can be considered trolling.

If he really took "Creepshots", that is a violation of privacy. Underage pics need no further explanation, just plain sick.

I wonder though, what would you say to our resident troll here posting anti-Semitic, neo-nazi Holocaust pics? Wouldn't that count under abusing religious freedom?

Note- I haven't seen any of these pics because you-know-who is on my ignore list, but I do see others describing them here and there.

 

[TE999]

Why would anyone with so much to lose (ie: his employment/source of income) and so many people depending on him for their very lives, do such a reprehensible thing? I suppose you have to be a totally sick fuck counting on the presumed anonymity of the 'Net to indulge in such twisted behavior. He deserves to be severely punished, except that his family would suffer more than he would. I consider his actions a twisted form of domestic violence. What a sleazebag.

 

[PennLady]

Why would anyone with so much to lose (ie: his employment/source of income) and so many people depending on him for their very lives, do such a reprehensible thing? I suppose you have to be a totally sick fuck counting on the presumed anonymity of the 'Net to indulge in such twisted behavior. He deserves to be severely punished, except that his family would suffer more than he would. I consider his actions a twisted form of domestic violence. What a sleazebag.

I'm with you, TE. This type of behavior is something I can understand in a kind of academic way, but I don't really "get." I can't understand why someone would spend so much of their time doing things like this, even if they were single, or whatever.

And while I'm all for free speech, I think you need to own up to it except in very specific cases (whistle-blowing, physical repercussions, things like that). If you want to get involved with something that carries a social stigma or penalty, perhaps you should think twice about doing it, even if it's legal.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He deserves to be severely punished, except that his family would suffer more than he would.

Oh, gosh those poor family members!

Did you read the part where both his wife and son have participated in his 'work?" So, no, not much sympathy for his family.

On that subject, too, this comment speaks to me;

Here’s some prepubescent in a bikini! Here’s a woman bloodied and getting her ass beat by a large man! Here’s some incest! Some anti-Semitism! Some ni**er jailbait! Ha ha ha ha! I have my rights; free speech man! I’m just trollin’! If they don’t like it, they shouldn’t have…well, put themselves in that position.

Oh wait, don’t tell on me man. I got a mortgage, my boss will get mad, I have FEELINGS man, you’re really gonna mess me up. Have a heart, have some SYMPATHY. Care about ME! Because what you’re doing is way worse than racism, homophobia, and posting pictures of unsuspecting women. Cause I say so.

Fuck you fucker. Deal with and lay in the vomit pool you created by your own hand.

Emotional, yes-- but-- they have a point.

 

[TinyBeth]

Oh well if his wife and kids took part then no sympathy for any of them. I like anonymity on the net, but posting underage pictures and engaging in harassment are criminal. The author should have gone to the cops, not published an article to bring the guy yet more attention.

 

[lovecraft68]

And this proves what?

Big deal. Except for the under age girl pics you can find all the other bullshit right here in this site.

THis guy gets what for exposing this guy?

I think the day someone contacts me from here saying they know me and etc....

then maybe I'll charge them with stalking me.

 

[sr71plt]

And this proves what?

Big deal. Except for the under age girl pics you can find all the other bullshit right here in this site.

THis guy gets what for exposing this guy?

I think the day someone contacts me from here saying they know me and etc....

then maybe I'll charge them with stalking me.

So, maybe I should charge you with stalking because twice you've posted elements of my real name--to let me know you found me--and Laurel erased them both times?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And this proves what?

Big deal. Except for the under age girl pics you can find all the other bullshit right here in this site.

THis guy gets what for exposing this guy?

I think the day someone contacts me from here saying they know me and etc....

then maybe I'll charge them with stalking me.

What do you want it to prove?

 

[bashfullyshameless]

Only a fool honestly believes the internet provides secure, reliable anonymity. It's only a matter of how much effort an interested party is willing to put into finding you. This jackass damn well knew that.

He was not making any sort of principled stand for free speech. He was posting racy pics of underage girls without their consent. That his own identity was posted on the net without his consent is some pretty fitting justice as far as I'm concerned. One could make the argument that it doesn't cause him ENOUGH trouble in light of his bullshit, but it's certainly not a matter of OVERLY punishing him.

 

[bienheureuse]

How many people on this site have suffered for similar reasons, simply because one poster on this site doesn't like them?

Really? How common is this? That's pretty alarming, if the answer is anything other than "random 1-in-a-million."

I don't have a problem with what happened to Michael Brutsch because I believe in karma. You make it your life's avocation to fuck with people and harass them and embarrass them on the internet... well, that's going to come around and bite you at some point. I never get it when people want to be hateful and ugly but want to cry foul when the same is dealt back to them.

I guess for me it comes down to: Your right to free speech ends at my right to think you're a scumbag.

 

[TinyBeth]

I guess for me it comes down to: Your right to free speech ends at my right to think you're a scumbag.

Perfect!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interestingly, he kinda didn't cry foul. He gave it a moment,, just to see if he could avert things,-- but he did seem resigned to being outed.

 

[sr71plt]

Really? How common is this? That's pretty alarming, if the answer is anything other than "random 1-in-a-million."

I don't know how common it is--but I've identified an example of it on this thread.

There, of course, is a forum rule against it (#4), and Laurel will erase the "outing" if you tell her about it--which I've had to do twice already with the postings of a regular member of this forum. (She did say that after the third time, she'd bounce him--so I'm looking forward for the third time. )

 

[PennLady]

For anyone who may be interested, here are links articles about the fallout of Chen's Gawker article, a couple of which were posted before Chen's article was.

WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...f82c64-141c-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

BetaBeat: http://betabeat.com/2012/10/reddit-readies-for-brewing-inter-website-war-bans-links-to-gawker-media/

Salon: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/infamous_reddit_troll_loses_job_after_gawker_expose/

Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...y_gawker_when_will_law_enforcement_catch.html

 

[sr71plt]

I looked at the Washington Post article. I don't see this as a free speech issue. Having the freedom to say what you want doesn't really mean you ipso facto have a right to do it anonymously or without being stuck with the responsibility for saying it.

 

[PennLady]

I looked at the Washington Post article. I don't see this as a free speech issue. Having the freedom to say what you want doesn't really mean you ipso facto have a right to do it anonymously or without being stuck with the responsibility for saying it.

I think that's one of the drawbacks to the internet and anonymity -- people seem to think it does in fact permit them to post anything without taking responsibility for it.

 

[TE999]

Oh, gosh those poor family members!

Did you read the part where both his wife and son have participated in his 'work?" So, no, not much sympathy for his family.

*facepalm* I gotta start readin' them articles.