241–250 of 255 posts
The term “Cyberflashing” is ridiculous. It makes it sound innocent and cutesy. We already have a term for this, it’s sexual harassment.
Eh, it's pithy and evocative.
As a nudist I find it increasingly frustrating battling all these well-meaning impediments every firm seems to be throwing up everywhere for the sake of combating pornography. Latest discovery is that iOS’s new “press to copy person” doesn’t work if the person is undressed, which makes sense if they’re trying to ensure it doesn’t facilitate copy-and-paste porn of the lowest calibre but… sheesh. I don’t understand why…
"People who want to distribute material featuring naked humans" have many, many, many options. Bumble just isn't one of them.
Bumble does "their darnest to make it impossible" because they want to. Perhaps because their livelihood depends on preventing their dating app from turning into a porn app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A less dramatic version of your first solution is to show a profile progressively less the more matches are pending, and the more selective you are in rejecting pending matches. Couple that with trying to predict likely matches and weight towards showing profiles which are likely to match and you would likely approach solution 2 without explicitly focusing only on attractiveness. But at the same time you'll have kill…
How do dating apps make money? They were all prerevenue last time I used one. I think trying to move away from images is a good idea, so people can showcase their worth to better compete with the physical gifted people who benefit from images. I thought of a idea where you have to have a reel 10second video showcasing 5 traits Let's say, you see the list of options and choose Cooking Humour Adventure Intellect Streng…
The typical user stays only for weeks or months at a time. Many users come back rarely enough that e.g. Bumble offers a lifetime premium membership for less than it costs you to renew their quarterly membership a third time ($149 for the lifetime membership I think), which should tell you something about how long they expect even the most committed users to hang around.
Which makes sense. After all, if they do their job, you'll meet someone and not need the app any more, and if they do nothing for you, you'll get tired of them and disappear eventually. Only a very narrow subset of users use the non-hookup focused sites for very long.
The challenge then is that this puts a very severe ceiling on your customer acquisition cost. Who knows what their average lifetime value of a user is, but it's going to be a small fraction of that $149 lifetime membership, with most users never paying anything at all.
If you can make one that is good enough that you don't need to advertise much, you might have a chance, but it's a very tough, very crowded market (for every Tinder and Bumble, there's are hundreds of dating sites which nobody remembers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is always unsolicited until it is reasonably, directly solicited
Right but then you're making 'reasonably' and 'directly' do a lot of heavy lifting. And what does directly even mean in this context? The standards for initiating sex don't require a sit down conversation as to what each party is agreeing to. So why should nude sending be held to a different standard?
I was permanently banned from Tinder for trying to upload a picture of myself holding a pepper from my garden. I can only assume that Tinder's AI thought the pepper looked like an unacceptable body part. I am absolutely in favor of using AI to combat unsolicited nudes as long as it's implemented something like: on the sender's side, show a warning before sending that the image appears to be in bad taste and asking fo…
> I was permanently banned from Tinder for trying to upload a picture of myself holding a pepper from my garden. I can only assume that Tinder's AI thought the pepper looked like an unacceptable body part. If that was a "peter pepper", the AI could have reacted just like a human. NSFW warning in case you search: yes, it can look very close to the real thing. I tried to grow them in my balcony among other types of chi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sexual harassment is too extreme. 20 years of prison in some places. Cyber flashing is indeed the more appropriate term. I will be absolutely unequivocally clear about my opinion on this: Cyber flashing does not deserve jail time. It deserves being banned from bumble. Anyone who is so low and so cruel to jail someone for cyber flashing... that person is the one who deserves jail time. Also logistically you'd be jaili…
If you did this in public you’d be sent to jail. Why is it ok on the internet? Unsolicited indecent exposure is sexual harassment.
The reality is common sense is the best choice here. There is no alignment when obviously your gut tells you flashing your dick in public is much worse then a dick pic.
That gut feeling that regulates that feeling is the same feeling that tells us that while porn is ok to be all over the internet, it's not ok for porn scenes to be played in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but then you're making 'reasonably' and 'directly' do a lot of heavy lifting. And what does directly even mean in this context? The standards for initiating sex don't require a sit down conversation as to what each party is agreeing to. So why should nude sending be held to a different standard?
In modern countries that have implemented a consent-based model instead of a coercion-based one you can't just initiate sex with someone based on your presumption that the other person wants it. If they actually don't (even if they don't explicitly say "no") it's considered rape by the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent_in_law
I was permanently banned from Tinder for trying to upload a picture of myself holding a pepper from my garden. I can only assume that Tinder's AI thought the pepper looked like an unacceptable body part. I am absolutely in favor of using AI to combat unsolicited nudes as long as it's implemented something like: on the sender's side, show a warning before sending that the image appears to be in bad taste and asking fo…
Quick feedback like this is what makes people figure out the system very fast, defeating the protection's purpose. It would work much better, if the warning only showed up on the receiver's side - maybe a blank image and the warning, a heavily blurred image and the warning, and a prompt if received would like it to view or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In modern countries that have implemented a consent-based model instead of a coercion-based one you can't just initiate sex with someone based on your presumption that the other person wants it. If they actually don't (even if they don't explicitly say "no") it's considered rape by the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent_in_law
And in what consent based jurisdictions are you required to sit down and have a conversation about what is going to happen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in what consent based jurisdictions are you required to sit down and have a conversation about what is going to happen?
All of them if you want to be sure, which you should. Update your obsolete and outdated view on consent.
She tells me off if I suggest going to bed to have sex because it kills the mood. So what? Am I to give up sex because our views on consent don't match up with your views?
Have you ever actually been in a relationship? Or do you just have an aversion to sponteniety?