Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

thecut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#231

Post by kevincox »

camillomiller wrote: post #38
yosito wrote: post #33

TIL 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…

A lot of the responses to this comments are focusing on licensing which I think is missing the interesting point of this thought. I agree that many of the images here are likely copyright infringement but this is not a new, unique or interesting problem.

Imagine that instead of rehosting the images they just linked to the original source on social media. This is now legal, but is it "right" to aggregate images under this context?

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#232

Post by freewilly1040 »

kevincox wrote: post #228
freewilly1040 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s say you have a LinkedIn profile picture, and someone posts that picture to a site about people who look like they might be pedophiles. Would you be ok with that?

That is very different. That is implying that you may be a pedofile which is unpleasant whether or not there is a photo and whether or no anyone else even sees it. This is saying that you have nice feet, which may make some people uncomfortable, and isn't necessary "right", but is completely different.

It's unwanted attention on the internet. I think it's fine to make fun of people who look like pedopohiles (not saying you are a pedophile, that would be libel probably). Some people have a problem with it, but I don't, so what's the big deal?

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#233

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

beaconstudios wrote: post #188
severak_cz wrote: post #7

For every weird niche hobby there is a guy who is creating literal database of something with almost scientific precision. Mix it with rule 34 and you got things like WikiFeet or some Czech site which is literal database of nude scenes in our whole cinema history (sorted by movies, actresses and director including screencaps of course).

Another one I love is philosopher.life, aka "h0p3's wiki" where this guy h0p3 shares his personal thoughts philosophies and personal online interactions. It's really charming and interesting and a real throwback to the "old Web" of personal websites.

Wow that website (https://philosopher.life) has an incredibly soothing UI. I don't know if it's the "old web" part of it that's doing it for me or what, but I really like the theme.

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#234

Post by greenyoda »

will4274 wrote: post #223
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> intellectual property of the author Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service? Legally, if your Facebook photos get posted to another site, I think Facebook gets to complain, but not you - you signed those photos away, for Facebook to use for any purpose they like (even including a foot fetish website). I don't disagree with you on what people expect, but it's worth reiterating that reality does n…

> Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service?

Most of the terms-of-service agreements I've seen state that the creator retains the copyright, but grants the site a non-exclusive license to display the content.

Assigning the copyright would be problematic. For example, a professional photographer who posted their photo to Facebook would lose their right to sell the photo or post it to another site if they didn't retain the copyright.

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#235

Post by bigbillheck »

person_of_color wrote: post #6
sadmann1 wrote: post #3

The internet was a mistake

The internet has caused society to devolve into idiocracy. Curtis Yavin might be proved correct.

There's nothing--and I never thought I would be writing this--idiocratic about the foot fetish people, who long-predate the internet, and if Mencius Moldbug says otherwise that's him showing his own limitations.

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#236

Post by nickysielicki »

There is link-tracking on this article, and that's fine -- whatever. What blows my mind is how my browser (latest firefox) is seemingly enabling it. When you hover over the first link, it clearly shows in the bottom left corner that it will link to 'wikifeet.com', but if you actually click the link, my adblocker stops me from being redirected to 'redirectingat.com'.

Why does my browser lie to me like this?

edit: inspect element clearly shows

     my wikiFeet page
What's going on here? Is it replacing the links on mousedown?

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#237

Post by detaro »

nickysielicki wrote: post #236

There is link-tracking on this article, and that's fine -- whatever. What blows my mind is how my browser (latest firefox) is seemingly enabling it. When you hover over the first link, it clearly shows in the bottom left corner that it will link to 'wikifeet.com', but if you actually click the link, my adblocker stops me from being redirected to 'redirectingat.com'. Why does my browser lie to me like this? edit: insp…

The alternative would be showing "I can't tell you what happens if you click here". An interesting question if that's better or not.

> What's going on here? Is it replacing the links on mousedown?

Yes. Observe what happens to the URL shown when you right-click the link.

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#238

Post by furyg3 »

kevincox wrote: post #229
furyg3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but no. First there is the question of licensing. The users are posting (and site is hosting) images that they (presumably) don't have licenses to use or permission to post to that site. A photograph being publicly available does not put it in the public domain, and certainly doesn't mean that a site is licensed to run ads on it (though even without financial gain it would still not be legally ok). The very fi…

I don't think the original poster is talking about licensing. It is an issue, but not unique to sites like this and not relevant to the parent's concerns. What if this site just linked to the photos instead? I think that would still make people uncomfortable and is not illegal. Context is the problem and it is unclear. In most countries you can't really prevent people from saying things about you. If someone wants to…

I don't get why this is so tough. It's ok for someone to talk about how they like your feet... until the point where they start posting images of your feet without 'permission' (permission in the legal sense refers to licensing).

Re: An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet

#240

Post by polote »

nickysielicki wrote: post #236

There is link-tracking on this article, and that's fine -- whatever. What blows my mind is how my browser (latest firefox) is seemingly enabling it. When you hover over the first link, it clearly shows in the bottom left corner that it will link to 'wikifeet.com', but if you actually click the link, my adblocker stops me from being redirected to 'redirectingat.com'. Why does my browser lie to me like this? edit: insp…

> Is it replacing the links on mousedown?

Yes, mousedown replace the href attribute, and then a few milliseconds after put the original link back. To debug that king of thing, you just put a break point on attribute modification of the link attributes, and you will see there is js triggered

Post reply on HN