4 ms·
> Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks That's a huge loss of g
by kachnuv_ocasek 6y ago
> Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks
That's a huge loss of generality.
- quotemstr 6y ago> That's a huge loss of generality. I don't think so. The author's core discomfort (to which I'm sympathetic) seems to not be about the image hosting, but about people enjoying pictures of her feet in a way that makes her uncomfortable. I don't think that wikiFeet moving to a hyperlink model would alleviate the author's discomfort with wikiFeet existing, so we need to talk about that core discomfort, not about the specific mechanics of image sharing.
- drakonka 6y agoOf course it would alleviate discomfort - it would allow the author to retain full control of their image. They could, with a couple of taps, delete the image and prevent its propagation on a fetish website.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoOr, up until recently, block based on referrer; or block based on IP address (eg limit it to one ISP that all their family use).
- enriquto 6y ago> That's a huge loss of generality. Not really. It's just a couple of innocent javascript lines away (on a browser extension) to the site with visible photos.
- bidirectional 6y agoWell no, in the article the author mentions pictures posted to their Instagram story. These images are only publicly visible for 24 hours, and I imagine Instagram also does some manouevering to stop them being easily linkable. Also the obvious massive difference that such a model would allow the original poster to delete the image.