Printable View
http://mashable.com/2014/09/24/emma-...ral-marketing/
I haven't got his 100% confirmed.. So might be wrong, but it's big on social media...
1. If you don't want your nude photos going viral, don't do nude photos and upload.
2. To use this as some sort of argument to stop the internet from being free is.... ridiculous.
Nr 1 is don't ever cloud save anything you don't want being risked at getting hacked, aka don't ever be able to access files from two different computers (that includes phones) without it being placed in local storage (or possibly the local network).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Nr 2, yes it is. Unfortunatly, there's market forces seeing profits in that and the bile that's been coming up with feminism (and computer gaming in particular) has been very nasty (4chan has been using the banhammer due to gamersgate), although I think simply enforcing the rules on say twitter would help a lot vs that.
Ironside, I agree with what you say.
All, whenever I hear about internet censorship, I can't help but think of the (now failed) revolution in Iran. To have a free internet was not only a way for them to communicate the revolution, but also a way to show the world...
With the banstick hitting the internet, we will let governments and companies dictate what you should see, and what you should communicate or not.
Now that is an extremely SCARY idea.
Problems will arise with a free internet. But the benefits will ALWAYS be worth it.
Apparently, the whole thing is a hoax. There are no nudes (in the wild, anyway), and I'm sure the marketing company that did this is about to feel the full wrath of Anon...
The thingy remains. Yes it was a hoax, people who wanted to see it got directed to a site being anti-internet-freedom if I got it right?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
So, no nudity but a load of ban-stick. Anyway, the ban-stick on the internet is scary...
Regardless, main point was that the internet should remain the internet :yes:
Oh good, otherwise Provost would be too preoccupied for....pretty much anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
She's a pretty average scrawny thing anyway.
Lauren Bacall in her prime and Ingrid Bergman
Now there's a couple of lasses....:whip:
So, sexual crimes against women should be tolerated because, once again, those stupid sluts haven't taken measures to specifically protect themselves? :uhoh:Quote:
Regardless, main point was that the internet should remain the internet
I'm not entirely sure this isn't someone from 4chan or something spoofing this. "Brad Cockingham"? It seems like a shell setup to me.
I was led to this thread on a misleading title :(
I thought it was over excitement from my Backroom Video Post, I opened it up and got impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Sexual crimes are sexual crimes, we already have laws to deal with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
To shut down the free internet to protect women who upload butt naked photos... Well, I see it as another issue entirely.
thats not what they are doing though - they are banning people who post the illegally obtained pictures - this is not a strike against the internet but against immature hackers and their supportersQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I see this much like the protection of Free speech - you are allowed to post whatever you like but you are not free from the consequences of what you posted...
In addition blaming the Women for having Naked pictures is victim blaming of the worst kind - don't do it
It's not really blaming the victim - it's common sense. How would we deal with a guy leaving his house unlocked and getting robbed? Would we demand a curfew so there's no more robberies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
No, he would be reminded to lock his house next time and police would go about finding the perpetrator. Same thing.
It is not like leaving a door unlocked at all - they had the images in secure storage and the hackers illegally obtained access - it is the equivalent of the thief picking the lock to rob the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Blaming the Women for simply having the pictures in the first place IS victim blaming and you should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise
That is blaming them for being careless, what moody is saying is wrong is blaming them for making the images in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The last 10 years has shown that cloud storage and/or storage by any private entity is anything but secure. This is a video game forum, did none of us learn from the PlayStation Network hack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
that is on the company's for their shoddy security - its clear they haven't learnt from ANY of the major hacks over the last decade (which worries me about how much data these companies now are "protecting").
The Storage is still supposed to be secure however - to continue Sarmatian's already dodgy analogy - the hackers picked the lock after bypassing the alarm - it still isn't the victims fault at all
Sure, that's on the company but if it is clear that they have not learned, then it should be clear that when you upload compromising pics at your discretion you can not be surprised that this might happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
There is nothing wrong with the act of taking nude pictures. But you can take nude pictures without uploading it to the iCloud or having Snapchat hide it on your phone without actually deleting it.
As much as Sarmatian seems to have a problem with me, I can see his point that if you assume mobile picture taking apps are inherently insecure (which they are) then it's inappropriate to simply counter by tossing out the victim blaming card.
You can criticize peoples actions without putting the blame solely on them.
It isn't my fault if I get raped... But I still wouldn't go to a gay party dressed in butt open chaps and drink till I passed out.
You have a wonderful talent at undermining your own points.
Of course, a lock and a security system are no threat to a skilled cat burglar. If your home is up, you will be burgled.
Which is why when you cant ensure its safety with a bank vault or something you dont put your precious stuff somewhere someone might actually think is worth stealing from in the first place.
Billy Madison clip
You know, that didnt sound all that great in my head, but I didnt think what I said was "god have mercy on your soul" bad
The price of being a celebrity is that you always have public's attention. That's the very definition of being a celebrity. That's why they are often a target of paparazzi or hack attempts, much more often compared to Average Joe. Nobody would give a rat's ass about yours or mine naked pictures. Keep that in mind if you have naked photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
That's doesn't mean that there is no crime or no victim, but people should be smart not to place themselves in a position where they can become victims of a crime. Common sense - nothing else.
Politicians have the public's attention too. Ain't no nudes of them that they don't personally disseminate. And yet, actors and famous personalities can hardly be said to be working in the public service, and thereby worthy of careful scrutiny.
Why is it exactly that (female) celebrities should have no expectation of privacy, particularly in terms of strangers not getting to see their naked bodies unless in relation to some approved work or cultural product? Is there no difference between on one hand accepting that people have an interest in your day-to-day living, and on the other coming to terms with an inevitability of elements of that public consuming the most intimate details of your existence at will and shaming you for them?
Celebrities are people too, yo.
That's not because we're nobodies. It's because we're men. The Average Joanne has quite a bit to worry about in terms of absolute risk and personal fallout, but I guess you're right in that they do get much less attention than the rich and famous - when it comes to reporting on their plight...Quote:
Nobody would give a rat's ass about yours or mine naked pictures. Keep that in mind if you have naked photos.
In typical contexts, we would call indicators that someone were doing so 'unhealthy paranoia'.Quote:
That's doesn't mean that there is no crime or no victim, but people should be smart not to place themselves in a position where they can become victims of a crime.
At any rate, it's likely that most do quietly take measures, but that these measures fail, as they are wont to do in the face of determined onslaught.
I wasn't going to comment on this topic, but this thread has gotten too silly. First the premise:
The pedobears over at 4chan, who have the attention span and long-term thinking capabilities of a slightly retarded goldfish, supposedly has teh noodz of Emma Watson. And they have not posted them all over the place.
That sounds slightly less likely than Queen Elizabeth being a reptile from outer space.
Second, the police do indeed care about sexual harassment of unknown people. One could argue that they care more about those than others, and the law certainly does. It's more legal to post nudes of famous people than unknown people, because apparently that's free 'speech'. A man from my hometown was convicted two years ago for hacking the iCloud accounts of a few girls and retrieving their pictures.
Third, plenty of the times a celebrity is caught doing "something outrageous", it's simply a staged publicity stunt. Celebrities make money out of being famous, and "having your sex tape stolen" ensures your place in the spotlight. It's showbiz, nothing to care about.
Fourth, this particular case seems to be some social media company wanting to show their skills at viral marketing. Watson may or may not be involved. If she's not, I suspect said company has taken a huge risk which will probably backfire. Bring popcorn.
In conclusion, this incident has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with free speech or internet freedom.
There's a fundamental difference between what people should [ideally] expect and what they can [in practice] expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
We introduce things like laws to make the can approach the should, but even if we introduced death by a thousand cuts for the stealing of celebrity nude pictures, there would still a chance that it could happen. The only way to make sure that [genuine] nude pictures of oneself that oneself took does not appear on the internet, is by not taking such pictures in the first place.
Essentially no-one is saying that celebrities are to blame for this because they took nude pictures, which would be real victim-blaming. It would of course be a philosophically absurd position to take.
This discussion here is exactly why I don't get involved in this chat. It's amazing the gymnastics people will do to justify stuff.
Viking, you missed the point.
Actually, quite a few people are doing this. There's a whole Internet beyond this 100-member backroom.Quote:
Essentially no-one is saying that celebrities are to blame for this because they took nude pictures
See my Deflationary Theory of Responsibility...Quote:
It would of course be a philosophically absurd position to take.
Then may I suggest you seek these people out where they are making such statements and argue against their views there, as arguing against them here without specifiers amounts to straw manning. Clarity of communication, and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I also assert that "quite a few", when compared to the population at large, does not disqualify the qualifier 'essentially' - i.e. those are fringe views. Of course, from those who do not take any nude pictures themselves, the conscious choice that taking them is, there is no guarantee for much sympathy - but indeed for other reasons than victim blaming.
Laughably incorrect, and so far that is what you have been doing.Quote:
arguing against them here without specifiers amounts to straw manning.
What makes you say that? There's certainly a vocal fringe that expresses these views, and certain others of a similar theme, quite vociferously, butQuote:
i.e. those are fringe views.
I don't get where the discussion went?
Granted, this is a common occurrence in the Backroom, but still.
Have there been any victim blaming going on? Specially since there are no nudes (just a debate on the free internet).
I haven't seen any? People have expressed that one can't be too naive and get away with it... That however doesn't de-criminalize the offenders.
If western girls act like they do in the typical club, at a house party with mainly muslim guys... Well, it would be advised against.
Not because the girls shouldn't have the right to act as they please... But because they can't use "I'm not to blame if I get raped" as some sort of shield to protect them from harm.
Do you have a better term for kicking in open doors? More specifically, the open doors right next to the ones that other people are actually trying to keep closed..Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well, for starters, I have yet to see anyone express such a view. Not that I've been looking for them.Quote:
What makes you say that? There's certainly a vocal fringe that expresses these views, and certain others of a similar theme, quite vociferously, but
I know, what is the point of sharing my view if I am just going to come across who disagree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
How can you say that!!!??? :on_redcard:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
To introduce som actual victim blaming in this thread: since your thread has such a clickbait title, it deserves to be abused. :cool4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Yea that's precisely the reason :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That title was walking around showing its bare letters to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Slut.
Well first, all statements begin as a thought in the brain so lets start there. Electro-chemical synapses activate in response to stimuli......Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Well it is. You said so yourself. You don't want to talk to people that do "mental gymnastics" to reach certain conclusions you disagree with. That's fine, but don't pretend that you are doing anything different than my Fox news watching relatives who can't believe the "mental gymnastics" that those dirty liberals perform.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
If I decided to walk away every time someone said something nonsensical or absurd here in the Org, I would have abandoned the global warming thread, the vaccine thread, the gay marriage thread, and any political thread where Dawg decided to open his mouth. I just figure they have had experiences I never had, so I don't understand the opinions they base off those experiences.
I like this line of thinking. It's basically telling me that if I had come to this thread and everyone was shouting "Women are sluts!" and I said the same thing, your answer would also be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"Sure the line of reasoning is nonsensical, self serving and ultimately hypocritical, but if you don't engage them, you're no better than those rightwing shut-ins that think Obama is the anti-christ."
It's the same reason I don't argue with the guys who think airlines are releasing chemtrails or 9/11 was an inside job. Not every opinion is equal and some should just be ignored.
Not really but ok. I've had outbursts when certain members made blanket accusations about gay people without any justification other than "icky" and I have decided to just ignore that from now on. I don't see anyone in here making such a blanket statement about women, the only person who could be borderline victim blaming is the OP, but even there I think he just wants to make some half hearted argument about internet censorship, not about female privacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
Fair enough. But if you are going to ignore the backroom, why bother posting in it to tell us we are all sexist pigs and that you will not engage us?Quote:
"Sure the line of reasoning is nonsensical, self serving and ultimately hypocritical, but if you don't engage them, you're no better than those rightwing shut-ins that think Obama is the anti-christ."
It's the same reason I don't argue with the guys who think airlines are releasing chemtrails or 9/11 was an inside job. Not every opinion is equal and some should just be ignored.
That wasn't really my point. My point was it sounded like it almost an obligation to participate. It wasn't "they're right" or "they make good points" it was "if you don't engage them, you don't listen to other opinions you ostrich with your head in the sand!"Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The mental gymnastics fall to two real points. The first is "how dare someone use networked storage, don't you know they can be hacked!?" It's such a weird justification. If I'm at the grocery store and someone pushes me over and steals my phone, I should have left it at home in a lock box if I valued it so much? Or if I'm in there and someone steals my car. "Well you know people steal cars all the time. You shouldn't have one if you really didn't want it to get stolen" You could take that line and remove "cars" and add in "naked pictures" and that's the argument we have. Cars are stolen all the time. Homes are broken into all the time. No one says "You shouldn't have had a TV in that house, if you really valued it, you would have kept it in a lock box"
But this whole "how safe is safe" is besides the point. This is all just justification for washing our hands on looking at dem titties. Notice I said "our" I'm not singling any person out. This is just a "well, that's our internet" Which leads to point two.
The other weird thing about this is the "let the internet be free!" cry that has also gone up. Free from what exactly? Roadblocks from naked pictures being taken? That is what we're talking about. This seems like an odd place to shoehorn a net neutrality or copyright law argument in since this didn't involve any of those. The only thing I can pull from that is some people are pro naked picture stealing? Cause if it's about net neutrality, why talk about here?
Oh I don't ignore the backroom. I just ignore the threads that go off the rails, which is sadly most of them. I still post in news of the weird and the video one but there are threads just simply not worth wading into. I actually kind of regret posting in this one but I was slightly upset that a thread about someone threatening to release stolen naked pictures boiled down to "serves them right" and "oh no, our internet".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You misinterpreted me, because I was not saying you are obligated to do anything. I never said it was your duty to stand here and fight the good fight, I just found it odd to pop in just to say 'you people are wrong, and I have no time for this, good bye' and I guess I did not understand why.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
I'm done with this thread. What a joke this whole thing is. I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you said AntiDamascus, nothing I read in this thread I interpreted as "they deserved it" but maybe I am just an idiot that gives people's arguments here too much of the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry if I offended you.
I suppose if you were to strip the naked aspect from the issue and simply focus on the fact that private pictures were stolen, then it could lead into an internet freedom argument. Obviously, these celebrities are not letting their pictures be free to enrich the world and thus are just as bad as the evil music producer companies that jealously prevent their soul uplifting songs to permeate through the masses without exacting a toll.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
I'm not sure how net neutrality plays into it unless the FCC slows down the internet for stolen celebrity pics.
I never said "serves them right" or anything like that in the OP. I think you read wayyyy to much into my simple line there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiDamascus
I don't know how it was in other places, but in Sweden and many of the sites I visit, this sparked a debate on the free internet. The whole thing WAS a hoax about the free internet. I wanted to spread that discussion here, from the perspective offered from this Emma-Watson-Happening...
Thread Title unfortunately might have been a tad to alluring for our more base parts of the brain.
Regardless, what I really wanted to say is that you REALLY miss out on the Backroom if you ignore threads going out of rail, as it's as often as not there you find the most interesting discussions. I think one of the strengths of this forum is that the posters very much themselves decide a direction for a thread, and how it should windle along...
Other forum lacks this "lax" moderation, and thus creativity dies and threads become more... Stale?
The thing is, those stupid sluts are at the very best not educated enough to protect themselves. I propose we start WW3 now so we can move past this day and age and start over/move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Because our species' track record of significant socio-cultural improvements following major wars is so consistent.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
Socio-cultural is the problem though isn't it? A good old world war should get rid of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
wow, so you're not even afraid of admitting that you've just posted this title as clickbait.Quote:
Thread Title unfortunately might have been a tad to alluring for our more base parts of the brain.
it's 2014, and we're still having this discussion. stay classy.
Thread titles is an art of its own... Why do you hate art?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
then you're the worst artist I've ever met, if the best thing that you can come up with is "Emma Watson nude..."
truly the mark of a genius.
I'll just skip past the dumb parts of your post... And thank you :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Thread is tired and needs a nap.