[deleted]
An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
41–50 of 301 posts
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#42> So why not just look at feet on Instagram, or screenshot them for yourself? What do you get out of posting them to another website?
This question has always been weird to me, but apparently there are people who don’t experience “this thing is good, i wish to contribute” or “this has brought me joy, i wish to give something back”. I mean, thankfully there are still enough others that we can have Wikipedia, where you also don’t get anything in return. Not even “clout”. Sometimes someone will send you a thank you and that’ll make your day. Open Source is another obvious one, but it extends to the real world, too. Some people will plant flowers in public places or do yarnbombing or pick up trash in the neighborhood or whatever. Why do it? What do you get out of it? I mean, I don’t want to be harsh saying “what a dumb question”, but it just kind of makes me uncomfortable how it challenges something that should be celebrated.
The next question about it being invasive is good and valid, but this one on its own just sounds like “why not content yourself with passively consuming”. I’m glad he called himself “generous” because it’s true.
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#43Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#44Another wiki for a more mainstream fetish: https://boobpedia.com/boobs/Main_Page (NSFW)
Interestingly, while it's been around for years, the word "boob" means it's basically invisible to Google.
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#45TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists. I believe everyone has a right to their own fetishes. Nothing wrong with being into feet. But the thing that really puts me off about this interview and the WikiFeet website is the lack of consent. Uploading photos of someone without their consent is wrong. The fact that the purpose is to satisfy a fetish adds an extra layer of creepy. Regardless of how the interviewer…
I do not agree. These are photos posted publicly on Instagram or Facebook. Anyone could see them. This website just aggregates them, but there's technically a live link to these pictures. And no, the fact that someone uploads them to a service whose ToS they have accepted makes no difference. You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. If those pics were behind e…
Strongly disagree, both from a legal and moral point of view. Posting something publicly absolutely does not imply that anyone is free to do whatever they want with it.
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#46If the year was 1950 your comment can sound something like: "sure homosexuals don't bother anyone, and I am not saying it is wrong, but regardless of that I am uncomfortable about it and it feels icky and gross to me, and I think it should be wrong..." Do you see the parallel?
That’s not at all the argument that was being made. I’m sure the grandparent poster would be more than happy for the content to stay up if they had the explicit consent of the people they’re collecting images of.
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#47I loved the article. More people should devote to their passions.
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#48TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists. I believe everyone has a right to their own fetishes. Nothing wrong with being into feet. But the thing that really puts me off about this interview and the WikiFeet website is the lack of consent. Uploading photos of someone without their consent is wrong. The fact that the purpose is to satisfy a fetish adds an extra layer of creepy. Regardless of how the interviewer…
> TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists.
Foot fetishists are SO common. If you don't count the boob & ass normies, foot fetishists are a clear number one in the fetish sector.
I don't know if they're that common or they're just easy to cater to (taking a few pics of feet isn't a huge issue for anyone who makes a living on their looks).
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#49If the year was 1950 your comment can sound something like: "sure homosexuals don't bother anyone, and I am not saying it is wrong, but regardless of that I am uncomfortable about it and it feels icky and gross to me, and I think it should be wrong..." Do you see the parallel?
That’s not at all the argument that was being made. I’m sure the grandparent poster would be more than happy for the content to stay up if they had the explicit consent of the people they’re collecting images of.
The images were publicly posted. How much more of a consent do we need?
The images are not altered only cropped.
According to this logic when journalists crop a picture of celebrities they should ask for dress designer consent to not include the dress?
Some people like faces some people like feet. Why do we need consent for liking a certain part of picture?
Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
#50TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists. I believe everyone has a right to their own fetishes. Nothing wrong with being into feet. But the thing that really puts me off about this interview and the WikiFeet website is the lack of consent. Uploading photos of someone without their consent is wrong. The fact that the purpose is to satisfy a fetish adds an extra layer of creepy. Regardless of how the interviewer…
Is it ok to publish photos of celebrities, athletes or politicians (public persons broadly) in newspapers, news stories online, or in magazines, or on forums, or on Wikipedia? If so, then it's morally ok to upload these feet photos. What about by outlets that some people don't regard as being legitimate news, like MSNBC or Fox? Those sources often seem like fetish outlets, they sell crack to partisans who mentally masturbate all day long to outrage porn headlines.
How about ESPN and athletes? They sell fetish obsession 24/7 to sports addicts of every possible variety. Fetishists obsessed with how tennis players grunt. You name it.
WikiFeet apparently has an IMDB rule in terms of who may be published, which seems within the realm of being reasonable as a cut-off.
And I strongly suspect that if the owner of eg Instagram photos that are being published on WikiFeet wanted them taken down for copyright reasons, WikiFeet would certainly comply with a simple email.