StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
   
Posts: 6262/7105
EXP: 52432730
For next: 520384
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 756 days
Last activity: 756 days
|  #1 Posted on 31.8.14 1807.01
Reposted on: 31.8.21 1807.04 | (deleted by Guru Zim on 2.9.14 2000) | Promote this thread! |             | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 129
Posts: 3950/4785
EXP: 24549326
For next: 500395
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1500 days
Last activity: 1338 days
| #2 Posted on 31.8.14 1908.57
Reposted on: 31.8.21 1909.35 | | I have legit question of course, after clicking on the links. How old is she in these pictures? | bubblesthechimp
Boudin rouge
Level: 52
Posts: 518/521
EXP: 1054306
For next: 29542
Since: 22.3.02
From: Weymouth, Ma
Since last post: 2997 days
Last activity: 2871 days
| #3 Posted on 31.8.14 2314.43
Reposted on: 31.8.21 2315.56 | | She's carrying an Iphone 5 so i would say old enough? | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 238
Posts: 16174/17667
EXP: 209546806
For next: 1507049
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 13 hours
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #4 Posted on 31.8.14 2320.31
Reposted on: 31.8.21 2322.06 | Original post looks a lot like a cut-n-paste of a small part of this Reddit post, so let's just link that instead: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheFappening/comments/2f44n0/new_celeb_leaked_pics_all_in_one_place/
(submitted without comment) | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple
Level: 118
Posts: 3377/3466
EXP: 18181605
For next: 201363
Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 1643 days
Last activity: 31 days
| #5 Posted on 1.9.14 0927.39
Reposted on: 1.9.21 0928.45 | | I don't know what's worse: Me not knowing who half these chicks are, OR me being so naive that I thought people (especially famous ones!!) weren't doing this anymore? | KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 3830/4714
EXP: 28880331
For next: 454750
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
|  #6 Posted on 1.9.14 1530.10
Reposted on: 1.9.21 1530.16 | I have no business getting sanctimonious here, since I looked at the pictures too, but... I find it interesting that if I wanted to start a discussion about modding an Xbox 360 to play pirated games, or posted a list of websites where we could stream WWE PPVs, it'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But when it comes to stolen property which violates the privacy of individuals, that's apparently fair game.
I get it - everyone wants to see pretty celebrities naked (including me, as mentioned), and once the pictures were online anywhere, they weren't going away. And nobody here is hosting anything, just linking to what other people are hosting.
But I can't help but think that
1) Nobody here would tolerate this if it was pictures of our wives or girlfriends or sisters - or ourselves
2) The rights of individuals should be upheld as much as the rights of corporations
3) If it was leaked pictures of naked dudes, nobody would have bothered starting a thread
4) Maybe having a thread you started show up every month in the Topics Of Interest post isn't really that important?
But like I said, I looked too. So. | pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 123
Posts: 3563/3809
EXP: 20974982
For next: 256344
Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine
Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 3 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #7 Posted on 1.9.14 1756.05
Reposted on: 1.9.21 1759.01 | | I actually did think all those same things, James. And then I didn't look. I would be irate if it were a family member. | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 129
Posts: 3951/4785
EXP: 24549326
For next: 500395
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1500 days
Last activity: 1338 days
| #8 Posted on 1.9.14 1802.57
Reposted on: 1.9.21 1803.44 | | To be honest, I felt pretty sick after a few. Asking about the age was due to the fact some of them were like 17 and below. As hypocritical as it is, banning hacked photos is note the worst thing this site could do. | HMD
Andouille
Level: 96
Posts: 2081/2131
EXP: 8677979
For next: 310840
Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 2359 days
Last activity: 2359 days
| #9 Posted on 1.9.14 2035.01
Reposted on: 1.9.21 2037.08 | Originally posted by KJames199
I have no business getting sanctimonious here, since I looked at the pictures too, but... I find it interesting that if I wanted to start a discussion about modding an Xbox 360 to play pirated games, or posted a list of websites where we could stream WWE PPVs, it'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But when it comes to stolen property which violates the privacy of individuals, that's apparently fair game.
I get it - everyone wants to see pretty celebrities naked (including me, as mentioned), and once the pictures were online anywhere, they weren't going away. And nobody here is hosting anything, just linking to what other people are hosting.
But I can't help but think that
1) Nobody here would tolerate this if it was pictures of our wives or girlfriends or sisters - or ourselves
2) The rights of individuals should be upheld as much as the rights of corporations
3) If it was leaked pictures of naked dudes, nobody would have bothered starting a thread
4) Maybe having a thread you started show up every month in the Topics Of Interest post isn't really that important?
But like I said, I looked too. So.
I always think the argument made with point 1) is kind of bullshit since the bar for the legality or morality of something has never been whether you'd want your loved ones doing it. So folks will say: you would see how degrading it was if it was your sister, girlfriend wife in the profession of porn star, stripper, prostitute. The argument as you're using it here however is far more cogent because this is illegally obtained material and not something done intentionally and for profit.
I'm completely with you on 2) however, I have yet to see anyone slut shame a corporation, even thought they fuck a lot more people than any individual ever could.
(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 1.9.14 1840) | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6263/7105
EXP: 52432730
For next: 520384
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 756 days
Last activity: 756 days
| #10 Posted on 1.9.14 2112.09
Reposted on: 1.9.21 2112.52 | I don't look at threads that do not interest me. Perhaps the same should apply if you're offended by somebody posting a link to something that's available in multiple places online.
| Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 100
Posts: 2255/2335
EXP: 10030733
For next: 323699
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 1541 days
Last activity: 1536 days
| #11 Posted on 1.9.14 2159.57
Reposted on: 1.9.21 2200.38 |
It's all pretty gross - but yet another unfortunate lesson in what can happen when you share/store these kinds of images using methods you don't completely control. That nude selfie is only as secure as the account being used to secure it - so if you're boyfriend's password is 'password1', then you probably shouldn't trust him with it even if he's trustworthy.
I never liked that Apple just assumed I'd want everything on my phone backed up to iCloud, or that my Android phone (for work) tries to backup photos to my Google account. I'm not interested in any of these services. | Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 152
Posts: 6002/6198
EXP: 43542669
For next: 759093
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 6 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #12 Posted on 1.9.14 2200.42
Reposted on: 1.9.21 2205.34 | I would delete a thread containing the pictures posted inline.
I don't Have to delete a thread that only contains links that may or may not contain the pictures.
This thread is also set to not display ads, therefore lessening the odds that our advertising policy is being violated. | KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 3831/4714
EXP: 28880331
For next: 454750
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #13 Posted on 2.9.14 0017.14
Reposted on: 2.9.21 0026.32 | Originally posted by HMD
I always think the argument made with point 1) is kind of bullshit since the bar for the legality or morality of something has never been whether you'd want your loved ones doing it. So folks will say: you would see how degrading it was if it was your sister, girlfriend wife in the profession of porn star, stripper, prostitute. The argument as you're using it here however is far more cogent because this is illegally obtained material and not something done intentionally and for profit.
That's the big thing for me. This is an invasion of privacy. This isn't any kind of judgment on someone having and filming naked sexytimes by themselves and/or with consenting partners. If Jennifer Lawrence or any of these other ladies posted naked pictures of themselves to their own Instagrams for the world to see, I'd have no problem with links to that. And if they were naked in a movie, I'd have no problem with posting links to screencaps.
Though I will point out that I've seen numerous posts that refer to the board as a sausagefest and wonder why we don't get more women posting here. And then the August Topics of Interest include:- The Un-Official Sherri Martel Upskirt/Stripped Tally
- The Un-Official Miss Elizabeth Upskirt Tally
- Jack Swagger's wife does porn while Jack Swagger does a new internet show.
- Here's those Jennifer Lawrence nude photos that were hacked
- Candice Michelle Porn Video? Definitely NSFW
- Impact #445 Brooke Hogan's Boobs
- WCW's Tylene Buck is now a webcam whore and probably an 'in person' whore.
- nude photos of WWE diva winner
- Savannah (Angela Fong) Topless
- Ring rats...???
- Randy Orton calls Kelly Kelly slutty slutty
- Chyna is now a prostitute.
- Here are those Tara nipslip uncensored pics you've been waiting for
- OMFG! Cameron Diaz did what?!
By and large, this board is pretty well-behaved, in no small part due to the rules and expected conduct being made fairly clear. But I can still imagine a woman seeing that list and thinking "no, this place isn't for me."
Truthfully, I can't imagine ever getting 50/50 male/female participation here. And like I said, I have no problem with links to legally obtained adult content, nor am I interested in shutting down discussion of the same. And again, I looked at the Jennifer Lawrence pictures so I have no room to talk down to anyone (and that's decidedly not my intent, and I apologize if that's how I'm coming across). It's just an observation that I don't see any penises in that list. (Though I feel like there was some Matt Striker thread at some point, so that's... y'know, one.)
Originally posted by lotjx
As hypocritical as it is, banning hacked photos is note the worst thing this site could do.
I'm all for free speech and I harbour no delusions that the pictures won't exist if we don't link to them from here. But this here message board already has a ban on certain topics and I don't see anyone challenging that, in part because the rules here have been clearly laid out over years.
It just seems like a weird double-standard regarding one kind of illegal/questionable/grey market/whatever content vs. another. If I posted links to NES ROM websites or PPV streaming websites, I don't think the responses would be "there's more where that came from on Reddit" or "it's just links that may or may not work, so it's okay."
Originally posted by StaggerLee
I don't look at threads that do not interest me. Perhaps the same should apply if you're offended by somebody posting a link to something that's available in multiple places online.
I'm just asking people to consider how the pictures were obtained. I suspect that if I posted links to stolen naked pictures of your wife, you wouldn't be satisfied with "if you don't like the thread, don't look at it."
But I might finally crack the Topics of Interest! | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6264/7105
EXP: 52432730
For next: 520384
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 756 days
Last activity: 756 days
| #14 Posted on 2.9.14 0142.00
Reposted on: 2.9.21 0142.14 | Ah, the old "what if it was your wife" argument. Trust me, if anybody wants to go through the trouble of finding naked photos of my (soon to be ex) wife and post links to them, more power to them.
PPV Streaming sites and hacked photos are apples and oranges. Nobody's loosing money because these photos got hacked.
I didn't do the hacking, hell, one look at my questions in the computers forum can confirm I barely can log on.
Somebody else did the dirty work. The internet exploded with the story. I shared the links. Again, if you don't want to look, then don't.
| KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 3832/4714
EXP: 28880331
For next: 454750
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #15 Posted on 2.9.14 0221.46
Reposted on: 2.9.21 0223.20 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
Ah, the old "what if it was your wife" argument. Trust me, if anybody wants to go through the trouble of finding naked photos of my (soon to be ex) wife and post links to them, more power to them.
PPV Streaming sites and hacked photos are apples and oranges. Nobody's loosing money because these photos got hacked.
I didn't do the hacking, hell, one look at my questions in the computers forum can confirm I barely can log on.
Somebody else did the dirty work. The internet exploded with the story. I shared the links. Again, if you don't want to look, then don't.
no words
they should have sent a poet | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 238
Posts: 16176/17667
EXP: 209546806
For next: 1507049
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 13 hours
| | ICQ: | |
| | Y!: | |
|
| #16 Posted on 2.9.14 0334.02
Reposted on: 2.9.21 0336.58 | I feel like I can't say "I stand by my previous lack of comment," so here's me being a weasel instead!
Look, what it comes down to is I saw this thread before Aaron did, so I got to make The Decision, and my Decision almost always is to leave it be (although I made sure to disable advertising on it because my understanding is we occasionally receive money for advertising and we'd like to keep it on so as to pay the bills more with those funds and less out of pocket).
That's generally my attitude about all the (obvious non-spam, non-troll) content that ends up here, though. There are a whopping three threads from 2014 in Banished - one is a "too early" prediction thread, one is a "too early" WWE Network thread which I felt entitled to post myself later, and that most recent one must be the one where you feel I'm "protecting a corporation" (although when I banished it, it was more me protecting The W).
StaggerLee starts lots of threads, and while most of the time I'm tempted to respond with "gosh, you sure start lots of threads lately!" at the same time I'M not starting a whole lot of discussion around here, and it's not like with each passing month we risk straying further and further from a critical mass, so I tend to let everything slide, which in turn makes OTHER people unhappy and Leaving To Never Return, so.....
Bottom line is I just can't get as worked up about this one as some of the more vocal rest of the Internet seems to have. Am I a misogynist, or do I think Justin Verlander has a sweet, sweet ass? Maybe both! Perhaps neither. Perhaps some other shade of grey.
I don't think Google's going to throw a lot of love to this obviously-titled-to-get-referrals thread (it did wonders on Twitter, though) because that's not what Google thinks of us in 2014, so ... eh, I just don't care. I don't. That's why it's still here. I wish people'd just gone to Reddit on this one, and I hate Buzzfeed/Upworthy-style headlines with a white hot passion, but it's already here and like I said earlier, and to the extent that I'm now on paragraph six, I don't care. We can keep talking about it if you like, but I do think I already got the gist of your side of it (and know that this is probably an unsatisfying response). | Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 100
Posts: 2256/2335
EXP: 10030733
For next: 323699
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 1541 days
Last activity: 1536 days
| #17 Posted on 2.9.14 0808.21
Reposted on: 2.9.21 0811.17 | FWIW - I'd prefer to visit message boards that do not indulge in this kind of content - but the fact that I've ventured this way since 2002 sort of makes that point moot. It would be nice if the 'Topics of Interest' were a little more substantive...
The only point that StaggerLee made with which I agree is that these were pretty much everywhere. Hell, I think Buzzfeed even linked to the 4chan thread (because that's the kind of world we live in now, apparently...).
Originally posted by StaggerLee
Nobody's loosing money because these photos got hacked.
Besides being a total cop-out argument - it's also BULLSHIT. Regardless of whether these photos were personal or professional, they are clearly not the property of the person or persons responsible for leaking them. Whether or not there's a precise monetary value is irrelevant - this amounts to out-and-out theft.
And there's no coincidence that it also brings out the worst part of the internet (see also the recent Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn harassments). | Parts Unknown
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1706/1739
EXP: 6461565
For next: 189125
Since: 2.1.02
From: Darkenwood
Since last post: 1582 days
Last activity: 1267 days
| #18 Posted on 2.9.14 1003.55
Reposted on: 2.9.21 1004.31 | | As much as I'd love to look, I didn't. But it's for ethical reasons, not reasons that are rules of the board or the government. | KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 135
Posts: 3833/4714
EXP: 28880331
For next: 454750
Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr
Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #19 Posted on 2.9.14 1351.59
Reposted on: 2.9.21 1351.59 | I think I'm done for the time being. Here's some suggested reading.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/1/6092769/creeps
http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544
http://mobilesyrup.com/2014/09/02/psa-turn-on-two-factor-authentication-on-these-sites/
http://www.avclub.com/article/news-team-john-oliver-and-cookie-monster-edutainme-208749 | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 160
Posts: 6265/7105
EXP: 52432730
For next: 520384
Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 756 days
Last activity: 756 days
| #20 Posted on 2.9.14 1444.34
Reposted on: 2.9.21 1445.55 | Originally posted by KJames199
I have no business getting sanctimonious here, since I looked at the pictures too,
But, then you did. So how about sparing me the lecture about how I'm violating somebody's privacy, bullying them, and overall a bad person. Okay?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
