Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission
Mark Wilson writes If you want to post naked pictures or videos of people on Reddit without their consent, you only have a couple of weeks to do so. As of March, the site is imposing a ban on content of an explicit nature that the subject has not given permission to be posted. The cleanup of the site comes hot on the heels of news from Google that explicit content will be banned from Blogger. It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening which saw a glut of naked celebrity photos leaked online.
What's this mean for the gone wild boards... verified posters only?
Lucky that slashdot's commenting system is so ancient and crappy it doesn't have to worry about people uploading gifs or anything else that isn't ascii.
Until it tries to uphold it.
Bah! You kids today and your fancy pastebin websites. In my day we would have used uuencoded data pasted into a text field and we were happy to see the grainy image after half an hour!
I get the feeling Reddit is about to implode. Their new CEO Ellen Pao has a history of getting herself involved in sexual affairs with married co-workers and then filing sexual harassment lawsuits against her employers. That's how she makes her living, positioning herself to be "harassed" then suing over it. Her husband, who is gay, no kidding, is another lawsuit troll who sues his own employers and even his landlord over claims of racial discrimination, meanwhile he runs a hedge fund which is likely to be a Ponzi scheme and is under federal investigation.
This interesting power-couple is about to need money again. I give Reddit about six more months before she storms off and then hits them with a $50 million lawsuit for sexual harassment.
The alternative would be that nobody is allowed to post ANYTHING until someone has verified that it is either (1) not nudity/pornography, or else (2) that it comes accompanied with some kind of proof of permission.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Reddit's decline started before the censorship of Gamergate. It started before the Something Awful forums invaded SRS and turned it into a joke. It's never was about gender wars. (although some of those events were symptomatic) It was never about politics. (although political vote warring and karma whoring added to the mess.)
Reddit's decline started the first time legal speech that no one liked was censored. It was an unpopular board. It was a popular decision to ban it despite it not violating rules. I'm not going to name the subreddit that was deleted because which sub it started with is irrelevant.Reddit administration banned a board, signaling that any sufficiently unpopular speech could be removed at will by administration. From that moment those seeking to remove various forms of speech started to work toward influencing admins.
Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope". This has happened over and over and over. It doesn't matter whether people should be posting such pictures. It doesn't matter how distasteful they are. It doesn't matter what intent the poster has. Or how distasteful the poster is. Or the reader. It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
You mean the jailbait subs or the sub where the teacher was uploading upskirt pics of students?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Looks like somebody has read the non-publicly released FCC plan to regulate the Internet for "net neutrality"
For one day only..back in 2000.
https://imgur.com/3gOniL8
IIRC it was an exploit in one of the tags.
I have to return some videotapes...
The whole point of my post was that the person I was responding to was an idiot for his complaint, because the only alternative to what he's complaining about would be completely absurd.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It also comes in the wake of last year's Fappening
Can we get a definition of that for old farts with a UNIX beard like me? I know there was a massive hack and sale of celebrity nude photos for Bitcoin or something. Is that what this refers to? What's a Fappening?
Yeah, I'm gonna Google it, but the editors could add a parenthetical explanation, or a link to Wikipedia, or something. I remember when Slashdot used to use built in links to everything2 - I wish they had transitioned over to Wikipedia so the clueless like me could be more easily informed.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Better yet, stop pretending your body is some special butterfly that will cause the sky to fall and dogs to make love to cats should somebody actually get a look at it. The whole body paranoia thing is a society wide neurosis. At best. You look very similar to everyone else. The more you take off, the more that's true.
I'd rather see someone dressed to the max than naked any day, I think probably because it actually tells me something about their self image at the time. It means nothing negative to me to see them naked, and frankly, not a whole lot positive. Meh. Truly.
Of course, then we have the motivational "gifts" provided by superstition, but I already mentioned neurosis, so...
Its people's reaction to seeing naked pictures of you that are the problem. You can get fired, disqualified from jobs, shunned, and all around your life can become a living hell.
If you get beat up in a alley, the damage (aside for the psychological damage from the event itself) might go away once the wounds heal. If you're a teacher and students find pictures of you? You potentially can kiss your career (or at least your next promotion) good bye.
And its one thing if the person allowed the picture to be taken (though even then, but whatever), but a lot of people abuse of positions of trust, and a lot of those pictures are taken without consent. There's a LOT of assholes out there.
4ch? That's a weird way to abbreviate inches.
Ah well, since we're comparing sizes, I'm 8ch!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
https://voat.co/
Or atleast they want to be a replacement.
I don't have a problem with being seen naked. Society has a problem with seeing me naked.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Oh cool, now we know where all the pedos are going.
I take my stand on the proposition that the publication of nude and/or sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject is a form of rape.
This not art. This is not speech.
This is humiliation. This is malice. This is revenge. This is greed. This is crime. Revenge porn
Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Free speech has to mean something more than the adolescent's desire for instant sexual self-gratification.
In the form of an illicit photograph to masturbate by.
I am sick and tired of the geek playing the censorship card when anyone asks him to behave like an adult.
You might want to speak to a lawyer...
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Slut shaming? What is that? Is that when a girl is criticized for sleeping around? So it's only bad when men do it?
You just showed your true colours. Guys can be slut shamed buy girls too. Notice the new rules do not mention gender; you did.
This has nothing to DO with offense. It has everything to do with the right to privacy, which is no LESS important a right than free speech.
And your free speech rights do NOT include the right to do things that violate my right to privacy.
A picture taken for one person, under an agreement of confidentiality (even if it's a verbal one) is NOT your property, and you cannot share it and claim that is "free speech". It's NOT free speech. It's violation of contract, theft and invasion of privacy.
More-over there are a lot of cases (like the fappening) where the sharer was never involved in the "transaction" the image was never GIVEN to them - there wasn't even FIRST level consent- those pictures were stolen by a hacker.
It has nothing to do with prudishness or offernse. I married an art model, there are many, many naked (and very explicit) pictures of her on the internet - but they are there because she CHOSE to let them be taken, she CHOSE to let them be published.
There are quite a few pictures from our shoots she didn't want published, because for some reason she wasn't happy with them - and those I have never uploaded anywhere.
If somebody were to hack me and steal them and upload them -we'd be pissed.
This is somebody whose entire body, including pussy-close-ups are already on the net, hell there is an artistic erotic picture of her that deliberately includes highly pornographic actions with a vibrator to make a point - that image is on my own website, anybody can see it.
But that image she consented to having out there.
It's not about whether nakedness is shameful - it's about who owns somebody's body, and the only RIGHT answer is: they do. THEY have the right to show it or not show it to somebody, and they get to choose whether or not so show it to you. When somebody else takes away their ability to make that choice - they are violating their body-ownership, which is rape pure and simple.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually your cawk would still be allowed on reddit (which is probably MORE likely to kill the site than this decision is) - after all, if you upload it yourself (and I find it impossible to contemplate a world where anybody ELSE would want to look at YOUR cawk long enough to take a picture) that is clearly consent for publication.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Tell that to the tabloid who took snaps of Brad Pitt boning that chick from Friends that nobody remembers and published them.
Pitt and Aniston sued, and won. The judge ruled (correctly) that freedom of speech and freedom of the press does NOT give you the right to violate somebody else's right to privacy.
This can, on rare occasions, be superceded by public interest. Anthony Weiners dick pics had public interest since HE was a public servant. That clause can never apply to a private citizen however.
There is no way anybody will convince a sober judge that Brad's junk is so important for the public interest that his right to privacy should be superceded.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Just because you leave your front door open doesn't mean someone has a right to rob your home.
It is a free speech issue!
Free speech is not limited to the first amendment. Reddit offers a degree of freedom of speech. For a discussion forum, this is seen as a good thing. Now they are offering less freedom of speech. Whether this is a good thing or not is (from a users perspective) a question of the importance of freedom of speech in a forum balanced against the importance of privacy, and from a business perspective a question of balance of the expectation of the users for freedom fo speech against the public perception.
Freedom of speech is not limited to government.
and a lot of those pictures are taken without consent.
What consent? I find the vast minority are pictures taken without consent. The majority are:
a) In public where there's no right to privacy and thus no consent (e.g. passed out on the sidewalk after a hell of a fun night)
b) In private due to own stupidity (e.g. Naked selfie sent over the internet, or sent to third party).
c) With consent withdrawn at a later date and then complaining about being unable to reverse the Streisand Effect (i.e. amateur porn from ages ago, or that picture you took 10 years ago you wish you didn't).
The problem is not so much a lack of consent, but that people will openly consent to waaay too much without thought about consequences and ultimately with little recourse when it all goes wrong. Yes this is blaming the victim, and you are right that there are plenty of assholes out there that prey on these kinds of victims, but as a society we are beginning to show an unrealistic expectation of privacy, as the media* and the Streisand effect shows over and over again.
*Side note I always laugh at the people who come out of the courts and then assault a news camera man because they think they have the right to privacy walking down a public street, only to end up right back in court again.
I don't see any pedo material there. Do you know something law enforcement doesn't?
If you're a teacher and students find pictures of you? You potentially can kiss your career (or at least your next promotion) good bye.
Why so? People can legally put their naked pictures to the Internet (dating sites, you own webpage etc) and everyone can legally look at them. Why would one profession be so special in this regard?
I live in Europe, I have kids going to school, I have friends working as teachers. I don't imagine the schoolmaster firing a teacher on the basis of "mr so-and-so, your naked picture could be seen online". The employee would complain (to governmental organisations who stand against such abuse) and would win.
Time to apply at reddit and do Ellen a favor!
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
Anthony Wiener released his own dick pics. After that he didn't have the privacy claim.
-----------
100% pure freak
Identifying him as the owner was surely something he could, potentially, have made a privacy claim about.
If I were to hack slashdot's servers to find the IP of some AC poster and find out his real name and identify him as the poster of something he may get fired for - he'd have a legitimate claim that I violated his privacy.
On the other hand, if he turns out to be an elected representative and his AC post was a screed on the need to nail all black people to burning crosses the public interest would outweigh his privacy claim.
Generally voters would be correct in thinking they have a right to KNOW if their elected representative is a closet KKK member. Why should other objectionable publications by politicians receive any less scrutiny ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Ignoring your users and doing what you want is not a good way to run a business. Digg tried doing that. Remember Digg?
Reactive moderation works well for most sites, as long as everyone is clear that it's against the rules and will result in posts being deleted and the poster being banned. Are you new to the internet or something?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't use Reddit, but - how the H* is Reddit going to judge, evaluate, or confirm the pemission? I can post a picture of Julie Smathers naked. Is Reddit going to contact every person in the world name "Julie Smathers" to see if any of them gave their permission? And even if they did, how can they tell if she's the one in the picture? Or do I have to send an e-mail to with an attached signed autographed copy of the photo? This seems like a "call the cops" theory gone wacko.
You get your porn from reddit? LOL. FYI: National Geographic magazines have naked girls in them sometimes too and the Sears catalog has pictures of girls in there underwear!
If a site banned the sale of goods stolen from your home, would that be censorship or refusal to join in with the thieves?
Except it happens all the time. In many profession. Even in Europe. Just google a little.
Feds to Reddit: "That's a nice website you have there..."
You know the rest.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When Slashdot users post from Lynx...
So who's responsible for pressuring these companies?
What consent? I find the vast minority are pictures taken without consent. The majority are:
b) In private due to own stupidity (e.g. Naked selfie sent over the internet, or sent to third party).
And while those pictures are taken with consent, there was never any consent to distribution by the third party or anyone else.
Frankly, what I'd love to see is some of these people start registering their copyright and going after the third parties and the revenge porn operators for statutory damages. Let's see some of those multimillion dollar judgements that the RIAA/MPAA gets, based on the unlawful distribution. I think juries will have a much easier time smacking some porn king with damages than someone who shares a few albums or movies.
I wouldn't call it a "mass exodus." The most popular subverse is "News" with just over 3k subscribers, and there's obviously going to be people on both.
Which isn't to say that I hope it (or another site) doesn't succeed. This picture thing, in spite of all the headlines it's getting, is really a nothing in the ocean of dumbfuckery that's been going on at reddit for the past couple of years (The latest apparently being "gold-only" subreddits).
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I'm replying to someone bitching about the reactive moderation being not good enough by pointing out what the only alternative would be (and implicitly, how absurd that would be).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Pretty cool, I'm glad I get to watch reddit disappear like Dig did.
No, most guys cannot be 'slut shamed'.
Many can be 'ugly girl shamed' but not 'slut shamed'.
That won't work on me, beauty is just a light switch away.
BTW 99% of slut shaming is done by other women. They can't have the price of pussy being depressed by sluts undercharging. It's already come down from marriage to 3 dates.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...for the ugliest post to Slashdot ever modded up "Insightful."
This is truly the finest example of the geek's sexual immaturity that I have ever been privileged to see.
The fundamental truth is that rape is not about sex, it is about power --- a man's dominance over the women in his world. --- and the geek's world is online.
Better yet, stop pretending your body is some special butterfly that will cause the sky to fall and dogs to make love to cats should somebody actually get a look at it.
Let's see some of those multimillion dollar judgements that the RIAA/MPAA gets, based on the unlawful distribution
And the Streisand effect at work.
The whole point of my post was that the person I was responding to was an idiot for his complaint, because the only alternative to what he's complaining about would be completely absurd.
I'am an idiot? lol.
In my post, although very SARCASTIC. You can clearly see that the ONLY way Reddit links can be checked is if everyone (the permission holders) checks EVERY link on Reddit.
So, by your calculations, i'am not only an "idiot" but "absurd" for stating the facts.
Get off your fucking high chair.