 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17784232 ]IsAnyoneUp - BBC[/url]
"I'm just a businessman. I just monetise people's mistakes that they made and it's kind of a shady business. But if it wasn't me, somebody else was going to do it."
"As sad as it is, hurting or ruining people's lives as people say, is entertainment for some."
Nice 😕
Pretty sure he has a point though - I'm sure someone else would happily start a clone website in days, especially with all the free publicity the idea's getting
Just a sign of times.Surprised its shut down.
Pretty sick, esp re. teachers.
Pretty sick, esp re. teachers.
It's rarely a pretty sight 😉
On a more serious note just because someone else would be doing it if you didn't isn't an excuse to do something you know is inherently wrong. If government and the law can't keep up and defend what common sense should dictate needs defending one hopes that "social justice" will prevail. There can only so many people's lives you can ruin before you pick on one with the nouse to track you down and a mindset of extracting revenge.
There can only so many people's lives you can ruin before you pick on one with the nouse to track you down and a mindset of extracting revenge.
Ah, vigilanteism - that's much better 🙄
I was throwing my fists around officer and his head got in the way. anyway If I didn't do it someone else would have.
No, not better - much better if the law would do it's job. But if it doesn't/wouldn't/couldn't.....
I'd imagine that's the reason he closed it down, death threats or something.
No, not better - much better if the law would do it's job. But if it doesn't/wouldn't/couldn't.....
If what he's doing is yet to be proven to be breaking the law, then the law is doing its job by not arresting him
ummm, think twice before you take that upskirt and send it to your bf?
If what he's doing is yet to be proven to be breaking the law, then the law is doing its job by not arresting him
That's why I said "doesn't/wouldn't/couldn't". Not sure if that's the case though (and neither I suspect are you) or just that it's not considered important enough to warrant spending public money or plain CBA.
You are of course welcome to your opinion and I certainly would not currently feel motivated to to take vigilante action but neither of us is directly affected. If it was your life (or your partners/sisters etc) that had been ruined (maybe ended a relationship, didn't feel able to go to work through ridicule etc) would you feel so law abiding? Not sure I'd know till it happened - though not sure I'd ever be stupid enough to have compromising photos taken of me by anyone in the first place.
Thing is no one else was doing it - anyone could easily have set up a rival site, but no one did.
though not sure I'd ever be stupid enough to have compromising photos taken of me by anyone in the first place.
That's the point. And presumably if you did do, you'd have a pretty good idea who has those photos, and as you presumably know or knew them personally, I suspect they'd be the first person to take up the grievance with?
Legal v.s. moral again. The Law cannot hope to cover all immoralities.
People do silly, angry and compromising things when they are not thinking straight. But this guy is exploiting harming people, and is not sorry about it. What a runt.
I hope this isn't the general attitude of "businessmen". I hope they can find some legal means of prosecuting him.
I hope this isn't the general attitude of "businessmen".
Businessmen go to part of the world to exploit the population in the form of cheap labour using the excuse of "economic development", Oil companies have been wrecking the lives of people in the Niger Delta for decades through oil spills, and you only need to look at the nestle baby milk scandal to see how these "businessmen" roll.
I'm still hoping that it is not the general attitude of businessmen, but the more I see the less I'm convinced.
He's not a businessman though. He was making money from advertising revenue - any 12 year old can set up a fake blog and do that.
He's not a businessman though.
He was making money from advertising revenue
.
Are those two things mutually exclusive then ??
.
Are those two things mutually exclusive then ??
Strictly speaking, he makes money from something yes - but to compare him to Nestle and oil companies is a bit rich.
to compare him to Nestle and oil companies is a bit rich.
why?
because if you employ hundreds of people it's ok to ruin lives in the course of doing business
or because you don't see selling advertising space as being a real business?
Since you're posting on a site that sells advertising space in order to operate, I guess it's the former.
Since you're posting on a site that sells advertising space in order to operate, I guess it's the former.
It's neither. I fail to see how generalisations (he is a 'businessman') make any argument stronger.
I simply feel the link between big-business-profit-driven-world-eating-people-killing-machines with this ass-hat is tenuous. He set it up as a blog about himself, not as a profit making exercise. I feel that to claim he is a business man is to trivialise the damage actual large corporations are doing as well as give the guy the ego boost he wanted in the first place, playing into the hands of both parties.
we can agree the guy is a dickhead and could do with a kicking though right?
Have we had the "it's only the internet, no real harm done" argument yet?
we can agree the guy is a dickhead and could do with a kicking though right?
Hell yes.