On October 23 2012 03:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:56 Dfgj wrote:On October 23 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:26 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 06:22 Caihead wrote:On October 22 2012 06:20 Dfgj wrote:On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control. I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem. On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites. Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm. In the context of how they were taken in this specific case? This isn't public photo shoots done by news organizations, look at the purpose that it serves. A picture on the internet, creepy as it is, doesn't invite personal harm to you. It's (I assume) anonymous and probably hasn't invaded your privacy (again, assuming it was just taken of you walking around). Your personal information on the internet is the opposite of all that. That can actually be used to directly impact your life. Yes, people can have perverse intentions with the photos, but they can do that with anything publicly available - even FB photos, and that doesn't make any of that media inherently wrong or harmful to the owner either. I don't disagree that the women have the right to complain/make stalking claims, but I'd still put stalking as different as providing personal information to the entire internet. uh..... all the information was provided by the users themselves to the internet. they are the ones who put their information on FB, Twitter, etc. this girl just compiled the information that they allowed to be viewed by the public. nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal about it. if they didn't want the information viewed by the public, than why did they put their information in the public realm? Is their public information linked to their reddit profiles? Because if so, then you make a perfectly valid point. Similarly, if people's photos were being put on that subreddit with links to their publicly available information (FB profiles, etc), this would probably be considered far more serious. their information is publicly available. how one gets that information is entirely irrelevant, because one has to break no commonly accepted law or standard in order to acquire it. is looking for an old friend or old lover on FB wrong? and if, while in the process of looking for this old friend, you stumble upon someone elses profile, is that wrong? have I wandered into someone's private space? if Sarah Palin has a FB, and I link to it, am I suddenly "making her private information public"?
No, because we already know who Sarah Palin is. She is a public figure.
If I was to post that sc2superfan101 was actually Sarah Palin, and link her FB on top of that, that might be different.
|
EPT
