|
On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS 1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule 2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about? 3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me? So basically all you've said is 1. CP should be banned, and it is... SRS seems fine until they start "doxxing" people. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy or bigotry, it's another thing to put people's shit out there. It's wrong no matter who does it.
Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases.
|
On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS 1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule 2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about? 3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me? So basically all you've said is 1. CP should be banned, and it is... SRS seems fine until they start "doxxing" people. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy or bigotry, it's another thing to put people's shit out there. It's wrong no matter who does it. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases.
It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks.
And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares.
|
On October 12 2012 20:37 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS 1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule 2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about? 3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me? So basically all you've said is 1. CP should be banned, and it is... SRS seems fine until they start "doxxing" people. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy or bigotry, it's another thing to put people's shit out there. It's wrong no matter who does it. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases. It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks. And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares.
Ok then you do agree that doxxing is the only issue. That's all that really needs to be said, take it up with Reddit. 
|
On October 12 2012 20:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 20:37 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 20:29 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 20:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 12 2012 11:08 Corrosive wrote:
never understood why reddit doesn't have rules like
1. no stupid ass subreddits
2. no cp
3. no SRS 1. subjective, "stupid ass subreddits"? How would they have that as a rule 2. CP is banned... Do you even know what you're talking about? 3. http://ohinternet.com/ShitRedditSays SRS seems fine to me? So basically all you've said is 1. CP should be banned, and it is... SRS seems fine until they start "doxxing" people. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy or bigotry, it's another thing to put people's shit out there. It's wrong no matter who does it. Then the argument should be to ban doxxing, not srs. People argue for freedom of the internet and then are so quick to ban things that don't work out the way they want. I have no issue with srs defaming morons or in some ways making a fool of themselves also at times but I do agree doxxing goes to far in most cases. It does go too far, and I have a problem with anyone pushing their agenda on others. Theirs is clearly a feminist agenda. Sure, there's a lot of misogyny on the internet, just like there's a lot of racism on the internet. You're not changing anything or preventing it by putting it on display. In fact, I would argue that they're just giving more attention to morons who don't deserve it. As long as people are anonymous on the internet, they're going to act like jerks. And just for the record, I'm not at all saying that SRS should be banned. They have the right to discuss whatever it is they discuss, and as long as they don't cross the line and put people's shit out there, who cares. Ok then you do agree that doxxing is the only issue. That's all that really needs to be said, take it up with Reddit.
I never said anything about SRS being the issue itself, although I disagree with most of the shit that I've seen on there, they have every right to use it as a forum for whatever they want.
That being said, I don't browse reddit, it's fucking silly.
SRS is just like the rest of reddit. It's a circle-jerk of like minded people who like to gather together and throw verbal stones. Good for them.
|
Unless you are not capable of thinking for yourself, law should not be your compass on what is ethical and what isn't. It is a good supporting tool in figuring out where you stand on things. One only needs to think of all the various ages of consent in the western world, or the hypocrisy of legalizing alcohol but not weed.
In this case something I would consider clearly unethical is slipping through the cracks. If someone decides the law is failing and tries to do something about it I have no issue with that personally. Legally, however...
|
On October 12 2012 20:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Unless you are not capable of thinking for yourself, law should not be your compass on what is ethical and what isn't. It is a good supporting tool in figuring out where you stand on things. One only needs to think of all the various ages of consent in the western world, or the hypocrisy of allowing alcohol but not weed.
In this case something I would consider clearly unethical is slipping through the cracks. If someone decides the law is failing and tries to do something about it I have no issue with that personally. Legally, however...
I have no problem with people getting a sub-reddit shut down, I have a problem with people putting personal information out there with no intent other than vengeance.
|
For what it is worth retribution is one of the main goals of punishment. It is speculative to say the only goal here is vengeance. I would have said deterrence to be the key goal here. If your private info was posted every time you posted a photo like that I think it is clear way fewer people would actually do it. Whether we agree with how she is going about it is another matter, but I definitely wouldn't put this away as vengeance.
|
I should clarify: her intent may not be vengeance, but the people who act with the information she puts out may have that intent. Which is why she would be held liable were someone to find this guy and harm him. She may not perform the act herself, but she is enabling someone else to.
And as far as info being posted on the internet, if people were linked to their online accounts, we definitely would see people being a lot more responsible in their actions. That's not how it is in the States, however, and to act like some great justice is being done because you deter one wacko on the internet is just silly.
|
Masturbation only effects oneself and is therefore ethically neutral; a masturbatory motive does not change the ethics of an action. Furthermore, I think we'll generally agree that taking unauthorized photographs and uploading them to publicly-accessible websites is not in and of itself immoral.
So, there must be a special quality of these 'creepshots', or a significant subset of them, that makes them unethical. One simple example is, "the picture was taken at an angle from which people are not supposed to be seen." Skirts are more covering than underwear because one can reasonably expect people not to look under you; deliberately peering under them is a violation of privacy. Holding a camera high to peer down cleavage is somewhat similar. There's also the possibility of the camera (plus flash) seeing through clothing that the eye normally could not.
There may also be something to be said for brief, non-representative moments of life. Something publicly visible only for a half-second isn't really public (unlike, say, visuals of your swimsuit'd body if you spend a day at the beach), but it can be captured and examined in detail if snapped by a camera.
|
One of the terrible things about child porn is that not only does the child go through the filming, but then the video is out there for pedophiles to watch, so in a sense you're branded for life. If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same.
|
On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same.
Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank?
|
I wonder what the legality of posting someone's name, address and telephone number is with no explicit call to harass the person. I believe the person behind the tumblr said the intent was to make people around the posters aware of their actions.
More power to them either way. I was going to say I understand there's a difference between creepy sexual predators and stupid people going "huhhuhuh hot girl let me take a picture," but then I thought about the fact that it's pretty much weird no matter what the situation is. I've never thought "omg i want to take a picture of this super hot fucking girl when she isnt looking and post it on the internet." You reap what you sow.
|
Even if they ban the subreddit, the community will still be there. People that enjoy this and that derive pleasure from these kinds of pictures will find a way to trade it regardless. This seems like a somewhat punitive effort to stop a more serious issue.
|
If it's done while the girl is in public I don't see an issue here, I share the view of Severdevil.
Stuff like Article 8 of the ECHR and other privacy laws don't apply.
However, I do think the case of the teacher taking photos of his student should be illegal, He breached his fiduciary obligations as an educator.
EDIT: To clarify further, I think upskirts are not okay, just normal photos of the girl going about her day.
|
On October 12 2012 21:34 ambikalx wrote:
I wonder what the legality of posting someone's name, address and telephone number is with no explicit call to harass the person. I believe the person behind the tumblr said the intent was to make people around the posters aware of their actions.
More power to them either way. I was going to say I understand there's a difference between creepy sexual predators and stupid people going "huhhuhuh hot girl let me take a picture," but then I thought about the fact that it's pretty much weird no matter what the situation is. I've never thought "omg i want to take a picture of this super hot fucking girl when she isnt looking and post it on the internet." You reap what you sow.
It's illegal, it falls under invasion of privacy, and if something were to happen to them the person who posted on the tumblr could be held liable. And if the person whose information was posted is under 18, they'll get in a shitload more trouble. I'm pretty sure there's serious jailtime involved either way.
|
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
|
On October 12 2012 21:59 See.Blue wrote:
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
Yeah, lets let mob mentality take over! Good call!
|
On October 12 2012 21:59 See.Blue wrote:
If you can find their personal info, post it. They want to harass people, let em reap what they sow.
but now you are advocating harassment so by your logic we should look up info on you and post it.
|
On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank?
The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical.
|
On October 12 2012 22:36 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 21:29 Severedevil wrote:On October 12 2012 21:26 Grumbels wrote:
If there was a photo of me out there that was used as 'material' for some people I would want them to stop and I would feel a little bit violated if I didn't give consent, I think most people are the same. Would you feel equally violated if the picture/video were amusing rather than erotic, and people distributed it to laugh rather than to wank? The context in which the personal information is presented may change how one feels about it. People are generally surprisingly consenting when their photos are used in a somewhat neutral sense. Implicit consent is thus assumed in most cases. The more inappropriate the scenario, the more likely implicit consent is not given. This continuum concept can be applied to "amusing" photos as well. Perhaps it's more unlikely that the person will give implicit consent, especially if it mocks them, but certainly the degree of severity varies. Creepshots is one of those areas where the context is deemed inappropriate by most and implicit consent should not be assumed. It doesn't take much effort to see why it's unethical.
Disclaimer: my argument only applies to pictures of a girl waiting for the bus / going about her day, not upskirts or sexually explicit ones.
It would be impossible to enforce such stuff as it would be dependent on the thought process of the viewer. If it's a completely clean photo how can you differentiate the people who simply go "Aww, she's quite cute" to the people using it to fap?
Given how weird some people's sexual preferences are, it's not implausible to suggest that some people may obtain sexual gratification from otherwise "normal" photos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
