The main purpose of trolls is to successfully provoke others, so the only difference in terms of scale/league to me is in that this guy is more successful about it. More efficient, effective means. Less fear. Not even bothering to defend himself behind a wall of "I'm not doing anything wrong, it's their fault!" and instead taking it to the extreme where they will know that it was worth it(to them) no matter the consequences. It is similar to how I don't believe you should bother to insult someone unless you know it's going to count(or unless you're trying to specifically paint yourself as a certain kind of person, like how I'm being super obnoxious about which side I'm taking in the Hoshido/Nohr thing), if you're going to go out of your way to insult someone in the first place, insults that actually mean something are not "crossing the line" it's the entire purpose it was supposed to be for.
Little things always build up into one's overall image, whether it is of themselves or how others view them. So I never underestimate anything that is below the scale, something "tolerable", something "easy to defend against", because no matter what you're enabling an aggressor. It's very easy to see when you, yourself, were a very active aggressor that got away with all kinds of shit because of how others tried to deal with it in lukewarm, vague, inconsistent ways, who were then taught to give it up to be more mature about it (think:every "revenge isn't worth it" story ever.) I can't feel anything as a former aggressor(who would probably still use violence if the consequences weren't any different from the past, this kind of thing is why I don't do anything that reduces control of myself, like drinking alcohol) but "Oh great, one of these guys actually did something that warrants news" at this point. He's just a troll with a spine. That's all.
Hell, if I actually had access to others' private info, I might even want to do this myself toward other trolls for the sake of internet vengeance. If they turn out to do the same in the "cycle of revenge" logic, then all that does is prove how shitty they really are. (but don't worry, I don't have enough of a spine to actually pull it off should the opportunity arise.)
he's better keeping any negative feelings to himself. if he doesn't, then he should get his just deserts.
If he's getting what he wants out of doing this, and the consequences aren't enough to deter him from having pride in it, then he is clearly better off himself for his accomplishment. A question arises toward all villains that are not ignorant of cause and effect: "Should I remain ineffectual, or is it worth becoming a someone of power? Someone that actually means something?" The former is definitely easier, it's what I'm doing right now. The latter is more in line with what people want to do if they were brave enough to pull it off. When attention is called to the former, the former is also derided further than the latter, and the effect is more powerful because they are in a position of being beneath others rather than above them. Because when you are the latter and get caught, you at least have something about yourself that you can use to assume superiority over the other.
Logic that involves justice, integrity, "what should be", has the problem of being extremely impersonal and unrewarding. It is much better to try to see it(and everything else) through the variables of agency, difficulty/consequence, and personal value. The latter humans can actually apply. The former is just what we want and, usually, can't have enough of.
Even then, what is the punishment for this, anyway. A fine? # of years in prison? Loss of certain rights?