4 ms·

We don't know who the person was. We have no interest in forensically doxxing them. The person stands in as a proxy for any person. Neither the person's life, l

We don't know who the person was. We have no interest in forensically doxxing them. The person stands in as a proxy for any person. Neither the person's life, livelihood, reputation, nor dignity are tarnished in any way by the posting of this image. No person has the "right" to not be photographed in public. There is no evidence the posting of this photo resulted in the financial gain of the poster. Where there is no harm, there can be no foul.

93po 4y ago
So by this logic it's okay to post non-consensual up-skirt photos of women as long as their faces aren't visible?
neilv 4y ago
This is a lot of assertions of fact, almost all of which either don't match my understanding of the situation, or are things that I don't understand how could be known so definitively. Also, this is speaking in a way that might sound like some referencing some legal standard, or being an exhaustive or overwhelming philosophical analysis. But, even were these assertions true, I suggest that the argument is missing the issue raised. Specifically, the image used as an example of 'ok' in one part of the Imgur policy document arguably hits all over the specific language of the harassment section of the same document. See quoted parts. It seems an incredibly poor example to choose, and it's arguably a renewed instance of harassing image posting by their own definitions.
rarspace01 4y ago
"No person has the "right" to not be photographed in public." Maybe in your country, not mine.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Rights aren’t limited by geographic distinctions, if you’re a human you have rights (or don’t, as is the case here).
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    They absolutely are. "Right" is just a name for "freedom or protection some people decided they like a whole bunch". There's no absolute, certain standard for what they are. Absent laws and/or norms protecting them, they do not, in any meaningful sense, exist. (yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Maybe when you “blah blah” someone’s whole argument, that should be a sign you aren’t engaging in a great way…
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Engaging with what, the several sources (not "someone's whole argument") I was encompassing in that "blah blah"? Have you engaged with sources related to this topic? If you're aware of some strong argument for natural rights that I've missed, please, point me in the right direction. AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much. They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.
- mlatu 4y ago
  yeah, that'll be another real problem eventually...

93po 4y ago

So by this logic it's okay to post non-consensual up-skirt photos of women as long as their faces aren't visible?

neilv 4y ago

This is a lot of assertions of fact, almost all of which either don't match my understanding of the situation, or are things that I don't understand how could be known so definitively. Also, this is speaking in a way that might sound like some referencing some legal standard, or being an exhaustive or overwhelming philosophical analysis. But, even were these assertions true, I suggest that the argument is missing the issue raised. Specifically, the image used as an example of 'ok' in one part of the Imgur policy document arguably hits all over the specific language of the harassment section of the same document. See quoted parts. It seems an incredibly poor example to choose, and it's arguably a renewed instance of harassing image posting by their own definitions.

rarspace01 4y ago

"No person has the "right" to not be photographed in public." Maybe in your country, not mine.

Zetice 4y ago
Rights aren’t limited by geographic distinctions, if you’re a human you have rights (or don’t, as is the case here).
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  They absolutely are. "Right" is just a name for "freedom or protection some people decided they like a whole bunch". There's no absolute, certain standard for what they are. Absent laws and/or norms protecting them, they do not, in any meaningful sense, exist. (yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Maybe when you “blah blah” someone’s whole argument, that should be a sign you aren’t engaging in a great way…
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Engaging with what, the several sources (not "someone's whole argument") I was encompassing in that "blah blah"? Have you engaged with sources related to this topic? If you're aware of some strong argument for natural rights that I've missed, please, point me in the right direction. AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much. They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.
mlatu 4y ago
yeah, that'll be another real problem eventually...