Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Twitter Bans "Revenge Porn" Photos

posted by janrinok on Monday March 16 2015, @05:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the nudge-nudge-wink-wink dept.

NotSanguine writes:

Phys.Org is reporting that Twitter has announced that it is banning the posting of sexually explicit images without the consent of the subject of those images.

From the article:

Twitter has become the latest online platform to ban "revenge porn," or the posting of sexually explicit images of a person without consent. In updated terms of service released Wednesday, Twitter explicitly banned "intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject's consent."

The update comes following Reddit's announcement last month of a similar ban, which came after the online bulletin board was criticized for allowing the distribution of hacked nude pictures of Hollywood stars.

Have you been a victim of "revenge porn"? Have you posted explicit photos of others without their permission?

Would any lawyers care to jump in and discuss what copyright infringement issues, if any, might be raised?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Twitter Bans "Revenge Porn" Photos | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 55 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @04:40PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday March 16 2015, @04:40PM (#158447) Homepage Journal

    Twitter isn't quasi-public, it's quasi-private.

    Ummm, no. Twitter is quasi [google.com]-public.

    quasi-
    ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
    combining form
    prefix: quasi-

            seemingly; apparently but not really.

    Twitter *is* private. However, much of its business revolves around publicly posting information.

    You've got it backwards, friend. Glad I could help clear that up for you.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:38PM

    by Pseudonymous Coward (4624) on Monday March 16 2015, @08:38PM (#158563)

    Yeah, I guess you're right.

    BUT, if Twitter has the capability of posting both private and public messages, doesn't that make it a little bit of both?

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @09:54PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Monday March 16 2015, @09:54PM (#158593) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, I guess you're right.

      BUT, if Twitter has the capability of posting both private and public messages, doesn't that make it a little bit of both?

      Given the context of the discussion (Twitter's decision to ban the public posting of photos which don't have the permission of the subject of those photos), why is your statement even relevant?

      I'm not going to make this Civics 101 for for you.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr