21–30 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's getting into the business of destroying lives. I don't think it's lawyers that will end him.
Whatever happens, the pushback by policy makers will likely result in overbearing regulations that affect all Internet users.
There was a profile on him a while back, and he came across as the biggest douchebag that ever lived but if he thinks he can get away with basically enabling stalking he's probably going to find out rapidly that he's not as sheltered under the law as he hopes.
I have a feeling this is going to end as an ironic morality tale, where his address will end up published online by Anonymous or /b/ or the like.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/11/22/how-hunte...
Not to be a profit-motivated-douchebag here...but what's the point of this exactly? I mean, what value does adding addresses serve to the bottom line? The site will already draw traffic because: it's porn. There's already, I think in EVERYONE's opinion, sufficient schadenfreude from strangers' private photos being posted online. And so what does adding addresses do? OK, it gives the submitter more of a feeling of pow…
Because a competitor site did it. Check out this blog[1] for some details.
Granted, that site did it because they wanted to profit from people paying to get their stuff taken down while pretending to be a lawyer. Which may have crossed a line which will land those sociopaths in jail.
As long as the information presented is not fraudulently obtained, I fail to see how at first glance how the company is going to be held legally culpable. The only difficult area will be as it was before: restricting information about minors (especially images) and ensuring that the site is not used to harass victims of a crime.
However, what has changed since his last website went offline is the implementation of many new "cyber-bullying" laws. I think the case could be made that posting information like this now would amount to "bullying" in many jurisdictions. But in my opinion, these new statutes really need to be tested and bounds set as they are poorly conceived laws.
As for decaying moral standards, any ethical debate about sexual morality in the US lost its legitimacy a long time ago. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. Not judging women as "sluts" or men as "dbags" for their behavior has the necessary consequence of accepting just exactly this sort of thing on the flip side of that coin.
This guy will face a lot of negative publicity that's to be sure, but it's the kind of attention he apparently craves. And from the success of his previous endeavor (his alexa ranking was not insignificant), it seems more likely than not he will succeed in achieving some SEO success with this one as well. What is missing from the article and what intrigues me from an entrepreneurial perspective is any sense of how he intends to make money. And I kind of wonder how he is getting good legal advice as, if I recall correctly, he skipped out on paying his last attorneys [0]. Also if memory serves, he sold the trademark and concept for isanyoneup to someone whom expressly wanted to shut it down. I wonder what the fine print of that contract has to say about future endeavors.
[0] http://bv.1110.cds.contentcolo.net/uploads/files/HunterMoore...
Not to be a profit-motivated-douchebag here...but what's the point of this exactly? I mean, what value does adding addresses serve to the bottom line? The site will already draw traffic because: it's porn. There's already, I think in EVERYONE's opinion, sufficient schadenfreude from strangers' private photos being posted online. And so what does adding addresses do? OK, it gives the submitter more of a feeling of pow…
The only thing I can think of is that it separates his site from other voyeur/peeping tom fetish sites and takes it a step further. For somebody with that kind of fetish, I'm sure this site would be their number one choice. Now, is that his mentality? Surely doesn't seem that way based on his comments, but that is all I could think of as a reasonable explanation.
Some further back story to Hunter Moore, bodhisattva and humanitarian: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/11/22/how-hunte... http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/3430751/
Three things fangirls have tweeted at him in the past week:
"If you had aids, id still f--k you just to say i have aids and that i got aids from you";
"One day I'm going to have Hunter Moore tattooed on my stomach with an arrow pointing down that says 'God Was Here'"
"I wonder how many girls have tried to steal @Huntermoore used condoms."
And: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-most-hated-man-... a much less NWS but I'd still have a think if you're at work.
He's essentially an internet troll, he enjoys fame, he likes being mean, he wants to be idolised and hated. He thinks he's in the right. More importantly he's said before "someone was going to monetize it", which is weird as prior to it I can't remember it ever being as big as it became because of him.
Well, this all sounds sufficiently horrifying and terrible.
It's both of those things, but I don't understand why there needs to be a post on HN about it. Stuff like this has existed for a very long time, just not in such an explicit, brazen form.