Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Asks British Users To Submit Their Nudes as Protection Against Revenge Porn (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Following on from a trial in Australia, Facebook is rolling out anti-revenge porn measures to the UK. In order that it can protect British users from failing victim to revenge porn, the social network is asking them to send in naked photos of themselves. The basic premise of the idea is: send us nudes, and we'll stop others from seeing them
.
I don't see how anything could go wrong with this plan!
Just you wait until this time next year when everyone is shocked and outraged at these pics being leaked.
I'm kind of shocked how tone deaf this is. If a company generally perceived as trustworthy asked the British to send them their nudes, there would be plenty of eyebrows raised. Now how trustworthy is facebook? In the UK?
(insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
calculate the image hashes.
There are several libraries available to calculate image hashes that can be built into a desktop tool
For example: https://github.com/JohannesBuc...
All of you actually fell for this?
Bruce Perens.
Even if you can upload the image to them to "fingerprint" images are often cropped and converted to other image formats and recompressd which fucks that up. So unless they have some super AI that can detect that from a 2nd generation repost this wont work.
Just as a side note if some super porn sniffing AI can do this can I get access to it for purely scientific reasons.
Probably because there isn't a "-1 Retarded" mod.
Vice can be entertaining. (search for the 'Columbian donkey fuckers')
The mistake Ratzo makes, is believing what he wants to be true, same as always.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is *not* intended as a general "send your nudes to Facebook and get them blocked" service. This is for a smaller group of people who have specific reason to believe that specific images are either likely to be circulated, or are already circulating in Facebook Messenger.
For people in this situation, sometimes, having a Facebook admin look at your nude pictures, while much less than ideal, is far less of a problem than letting those pictures circulate to people like your family, friends, and employer. Doing this, or threatening to do so, is a common technique of domestic abuse.
I agree with the critiques that it would be far, far better if you didn't have to send the image itself to Facebook to be hashed, but a) Facebook, not unreasonably, doesn't want the blocking service used for purposes other than that intended, b) the photo hashing technology is proprietary and they don't want it reverse-engineered if they can avoid it, and c) doing the hashing locally is going to create usability issues for users who are often not particularly technology-savvy.
I wouldn't for a minute suggest that this is a perfect system. But take your male middle-class tech geek glasses of for one fucking second and try listening to the people whom this system has been put in place to help.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I think that's the idea. Nobody submits their photos because of how creepy/stupid this is. But when Facebook gets sued for helping distribute revenge porn, they tell the judge "Your Honor (or whatever they call them in the UK), we have a system in place designed to prevent exactly this type of incident from ever happening. But the victim refused to participate. Therefore the fault is entirely hers, not ours.
You made the following explicit claim (emphasis added):
You provided the following links, neither of which mention Jordan Peterson:
You mention 'Robin Hanson's blog' but did not provide any link. Assuming you meant the following link from one of the articles, it does not mention Jordan Peterson either:
So you have not provided any citation where Jordan Peterson is even mentioned, let alone that he specifically "demanded that women have sex with them to prevent mass murders". Apparently your sources refer to "incels" for the first part of your claim, but the second part is unsubstantiated by the citations:
One could assert in a similar manner that "Donald Trump and PopeRatzo bragged about grabbing women by the pussy" and cite cnn.com with the same level of evidence you as what you had provided: i.e. absolutely none for the second party mentioned, who is never mentioned in any of the linked sources.
So do you have any actual evidence -- specifically an unabridged direct quote of him for the full context -- that Jordan Peterson "demanded that women have sex with [him] to prevent mass murders"?
I gather, vaguely, that when humanity was just tribes, it was a significant advance to start to focus on a stable family unit. But part of that was oppressing womens' sexuality, along with every other natural impulse. Eventually the whole matter of impulse control became the core theme of the monotheistic religions, which allowed the construction of empires out of disparate tribes. But after the Western enlightenment, and arguably, in Eastern countries where monotheism didn't hold, the freedom of the individual started to be more important, and so a return to the question of, how to integrate natural impulses and desires, without crushing the life out of them in puritanical obsessions. Also, historically, matriarchy got flushed out by patriarchy, what with the division of labour which occurred with agriculture. So we have a lot of baggage. And we have post-modern baggage, as post modernity arose largely in literary circles, where things like physics and biology are not really seen as relevant, then the post modern notion that EVERYTHING is a mere cultural and literary construct, has created the meme that all gender and sex is merely a construct, a construct which is exploited for power grabs, and that's the sort of cultural marxist critique of well, everything. So it is a topic laden with baggage all the way down the ages. Perhaps in a hundred years, once we are all free to be ourselves, and free of historical dogmas, and free of post modern dogmas, we'll truly be able to answer questions about what is natural.
I'll bite for the sake of it.
1. Women want and have sex just as much as men. The issue is they only want to have sex upper men.
2. The issue of 'monogamy' allowing distribution of women which has the side impact of reducing crazy aggression is not much different than other arguments. Ever heard someone say... society has to handle economic inequality because if inequality gets too high, people riot, kidnap, steal... and society breaks down. It's pretty much the same argument except in one you're 'robbing someone of their labor' and in the other you're 'controlling someone of their sexuality'.
3. This is just more personal advice than anything. Don't bother with complaining about women. And if you're a women reading this... don't complain about men. Both sexes are who they are and there's enough difference in both genders that chances are, it's you that's the problem. So even if we take all of your observations are 'true'. You believe that women today go for how entertaining a guy is. Alright... that's the hand us guys are dealt according to you. So the advice should be for guys to work on being more entertaining. Even if you think it's shallow... do it to 'rope' her in then show her all the rest of your amazing self. Same with girls... if they think men only care about looks. If that's what they think... then put in the work to look good... then show the guy the real value of your character.... For such an important life choice and purpose to life, most of the people don't put in the kind of work. And it's not that hard work. Get a good haircut, take care of yourself... You don't need to be The Rock or Arnold or Tom Cruise here, but do the basics which take up almost no time, and you'll be able to attract someone. I'm almost 35, and I'm only now looking right. I got married before this, but I look at myself now, and think... shit... I coulda had so many girl all my life if I just put in an hour a week. I do what I do now mainly for work. Sharp haircut, decent clothes... little workout. I spent more time browsing online profiles and stuff before this.
Just do something anything... to make yourself happy. I suffered pretty severe depression or what you call it in my mid 20s, feeling like I was stuck and society was screwed up. I'd never take it out on society like these incels people, but I could have given up on life. I look at myself back then and realize... I could have done so much.
Heck, even if you have no skills with women and you want sex... take a trip overseas and go to thailand. I don't mean that jokingly... I seriously wish I had done that. I had a good job? Do something.
This is probably shitty advice at some level, but take it within the context of what I'm saying. Give up on politics. Give up on society. You're not that powerful or skilled to change it. Get out of your systems thinking head of what is wrong with society and how to arrange it properly. I spent way too much time in my head like that and still do. Just friggin live your life and do things.You'll actually become more capable of actually changing things if you do.