|
On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph.
Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences.
|
Its a nice idea, but i agree with so many other people. I just don't see how they can stop this.
|
On October 13 2012 06:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 06:41 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 06:34 Scufo wrote:
You're comparing internet pictures to murder. I am done arguing. No, reread the post. I am not comparing murder to the situation at hand. I am merely using the concept of murder to demonstrate there exists an act widely considered to be unethical. This is brought up to counter your argument that people will be offended by everything and seemingly implying there should be no limits. I gave you a limit here. That wasn't part of his argument. Being offended by something isn't a reason for it to be wrong. The proof is in the fact that something offends everyone, which would make everything wrong. For instance, murder offends people, but that's not part of the ethical structure that tells us murder is wrong. Your bringing up murder as a "limit" isn't helpful either. What are you trying to reduce the discussion to? There exists something that is bad that's known as murder. If we could prove something were worse than murder, we'd know it was also beyond the limit. For instance, mass murder. But candid photography is nowhere near that line (which is not to say it is or isn't bad). So let's get back to Scufo's actual question: what's the actual harm here?
You guys are going off on a tangent about the meaning of the word "offended" and how I used the word semantically in my example. The point is not about people being "offended" making anything wrong. If you reread the context of the post where I used that word, I was trying to illustrate a point that what one person deems as not harmful is possibly very harmful to another person. Comparing it to being offended was merely a way to show how something can be relative. In this case, what is considered harmful is relative to the person. The possibility of how it can do harm has already been discussed in the previous pages and I am not going to rewrite the examples again. The "candid photography" here isn't used in an innocent and neutral context.
If you've been following my posts, then you would see that I am arguing that it is unethical because it is reasonably able to cause a decent amount of harm. Bringing up murder was simply to show the relationship between harm and ethics in which it seems likely you guys also agree it's manner of harming is unethical. That's what the idea of the "limit" is about. As in there is a reasonable line that people often can see a right and a wrong. There is a reasonable basis that the photos in this case can bring about harm. Therefore, they are also unethical. That line of argument is not arguing about degree. It doesn't concern itself with what issue is worse than another.
|
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit.
|
On October 13 2012 12:36 anycolourfloyd wrote:
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit.
the internet in general brings out the worst in people because its anonymous
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2012 12:43 askTeivospy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 12:36 anycolourfloyd wrote:
in general i'm really for freedom of expression and i'm pretty liberal
but i have to say that i'm not really offended by the idea of some of those sketchy bastards on reddit having their personal details published. they have no legitimate reason to need to be anonymous (as opposed to somebody speaking out against their oppressive government or something). that's simply who they are as people. people should be accountable for who they are.
that's why i'm sickened by 4chan. it is the asshole of the internet. it brings out the worst in people. and it holds nobody accountable for being a piece of shit. the internet in general brings out the worst in people because its anonymous
It can also bring out the best in people. Look at the services that some people provide for FREE! Yes some parts are bad and yes it can be quite disturbing. But is reality any different? Is the world perfect?
Much Cake
|
honestly, reddit has a whole bunch of fucked up subreddits that should be shut down.. like killingwomen and rapingwomen and beatingtrannies, shit is fucked up. and those fools that run reddit try to rid themselves of their responsibility to host their content on their pages by saying its the fault of the underage teen posting nudes, or the victim of the hate crime who is at fault for these subreddits.
|
On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences.
Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures.
|
On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures.
A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened).
|
I came across this today and I thought it was funny. Oh reddit, you so crazy.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
And fucking Adrian Chen did it. I hope the guy gets trampled by ultralisks. Not linking it, basically gawker released everything they could including spamming his name, where he works and his photos on an article. Disgusting.
|
As creepy and weird as it might seem to take pictures/post pictures of girls like this, it's really kind of unstoppable. There should probably be a law in place that says that you're not just allowed to arbitrarily take a picture of some girl's ass if she doesn't want you to, but as much as you might try to stop people, it's not going to stop. The person running the 'Predditors' site is basically waging a war against sex, which is always a losing war.
|
On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened).
That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice).
|
Guess they found out Stephano was lurking around and had to shut it down before too much more damage was done...
|
On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice).
Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it.
|
On October 13 2012 13:09 LarJarsE wrote:
honestly, reddit has a whole bunch of fucked up subreddits that should be shut down.. like killingwomen and rapingwomen and beatingtrannies, shit is fucked up. and those fools that run reddit try to rid themselves of their responsibility to host their content on their pages by saying its the fault of the underage teen posting nudes, or the victim of the hate crime who is at fault for these subreddits.
Yes reddit has other subreddits that should be shut down, but no, they don't justify illegal material that is posted to the site, and it is moderated against. And no, reddit moderators do not justify the actions of their user base blaming victims in cases where there are victims. The only justification you ever hear from reddit moderators that be construed as "protection" for people posting inflammatory material is that reddit runs itself as a public space, and as such they respect the legitimate free speech of it's users as much as they can.
|
On October 13 2012 22:17 SilverWolfe wrote:
As creepy and weird as it might seem to take pictures/post pictures of girls like this, it's really kind of unstoppable. There should probably be a law in place that says that you're not just allowed to arbitrarily take a picture of some girl's ass if she doesn't want you to, but as much as you might try to stop people, it's not going to stop. The person running the 'Predditors' site is basically waging a war against sex, which is always a losing war.
You're right, you can't stop this type of behavior. They'll most likely take their activities underground. However, what shutting down the channel accomplishes is by sending a message to the purveyors of creepshot telling them that their behavior is considered fringe by the greater society. This is significant on a site like Reddit that tries to present itself as somewhat mainstream(the POTUS just did an AMA with them!).
I find it strange that the more offensive killingwomen/rapingwomen channels are still up but it's creepshots that's been shut down.
|
Kinda glad this got shut down, other parts of reddits aren't that great either
|
Adrian Chen is a piece of trash, yellow journalist. That's all there is to it. It's odd how he could make me side with someone so anti-social and disturbing.
|
On October 14 2012 05:15 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 01:03 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 14:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On October 13 2012 13:54 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 07:30 nanoscorp wrote:On October 13 2012 00:31 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:27 PassiveAce wrote:On October 13 2012 00:11 Dfgj wrote:On October 13 2012 00:09 PassiveAce wrote:
I dont think that making someones body public is somehow less "wrong" then making someones address, name or phonenumber public. I'd agree with you if making said body public included making them easily identifiable to the internet. That is (I'd hope) rarely the case. It's creepy, but showing off a random person's appearance in public still invites less harm than making the details of their life public to others. I guess I have to concede your second point. It is much easier to cause deliberate harm to someone with that kind of personal information then with a picture. I still feel like that if your going to post embarrassing pictures of women on a public forum inhabited by teenagers with their dicks in their hands, then you should be prepared to be exposed yourself. I'd accept that if the conditions were the same - ie: exposed in the same anonymous manner. It's a lot harder to harass a random photograph. Isn't the photograph itself, in context, already harmful? Yes, getting a knee in the junk hurts more than getting your wrist grabbed by a stranger, but by grabbing you the stranger takes on the role of the aggressor, and should be prepared to face consequences. Arguable. It's not a picture of something you don't want people to see - it's taken in public. It's not a picture that you'll know about, or that will affect you (assumption). I wouldn't say it causes outright harm. I would say people have a right to be annoyed and ask for the removal of said pictures. A picture taken in public is not inherently bad and in general, people don't care. In this case, how that picture is being used is the issue. Maybe just maybe if the person who took the photo kept it to himself, then it would drastically minimize complaints because it's pretty much private and will never get out. It's very arguable that posting something onto a high traffic site like reddit or onto the internet in general can be considered negligible impact. I sure would not like to have a candid photo of myself even appearing on questionable websites. It's not even limited to the narrow scope of sexual issues. For example, I certainty don't want to have a photo of myself anywhere near a KKK affiliated site. I also don't want to have a photo of myself possibly used in an advertisement for a product I don't endorse (it's happened). That's reasonable, but I don't think that this part of reddit is really considered a massively-trafficked area, and it's obvious that your picture there doesn't reflect on you (because it wasn't your choice). Whether there's heavy traffic or not doesn't take away from the fact that it's still publicly accessible though. And even if it does not reflect on me, it doesn't mean everyone will necessarily give me the benefit of the doubt. It's similar to the idea of rumors. Even when they are not true, it can still cause people to wonder. Tell someone not to think about something and they will likely think about it.
By the nature of the subreddit and it's name, it's not a benefit of the doubt situation - it's the first conclusion that the picture isn't there by your choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d113/DJZapZ/id4LV.png)
