151–160 of 301 posts
"At the end of our interview he asked me to print out the piece, step in paint, step on the story, and mail it to him with my foot autograph. I might."
> 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…
Yarnbombing is nice, TIL: https://www.google.com/search?q=yarnbombing
if you do this, please return to recover your work before the weather gets it. (maybe you can deploy it again in a new spot!)
If 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?
A more accurate parallel is posting images from social media to gay porn sites. Nothing is wrong with gayness or foot fetishism, but one can make a reasonable argument against using images for sexual gratification without the subject's knowledge or consent. Personally, I don't think it can or should be policed. Any image could provoke a sexual response, and there's nothing to do about that short of not publishing ima…
> 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…
> “this has brought me joy, i wish to give something back” The scenario includes bringing potential harm to an identified person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
How come theres no Smell Transfer Protocol yet
Anyway I'm opting out of that one, I like my internet scent-free. I guess there may be some people who are really into smelling?
> There isn’t much of a community on wikiFeet. It’s not like people can heart the photos or whatever. Now I can see an important problem to solve. Innovation!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> 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 sp…
Note to self: never get a page on IMDB. Not that there is any risk...
But, not becoming famous is something to strive for. or. not becoming famous is? Either / or.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. To see them where I posted them . Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. Copyright, fair use and such is a hot and nuanced topic, but the bottom line here is that personal pictures getting shared is not wha…
Parents post pics of their babies all the time. It would be easy to make wikibabies, like wikifeet. Who is at fault in this case? At least this lady is an adult and posted her own pics.
Real world is messy...