SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12PM
as if ideals trump the actualities of right and wrong.
What is morally right or morally wrong is subjective.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:16AM
as if ideals trump the actualities of right and wrong.
What is morally right or morally wrong is subjective.
Absolutely correct.
As such, please make an argument for the moral rightness of posting "revenge porn."
My argument for the opposite is that it is morally wrong to deliberately seek to harm another or to violate their privacy and their trust. Regardless of any provocation, intentionally harming others (except to defend oneself, and posting photos of others without their permission isn't defending yourself) to avenge a real or perceived slight is selfish, nasty and clearly shows the poor character of anyone who does so.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:54AM
As such, please make an argument for the moral rightness of posting "revenge porn."
Also, what qualifies as a good (convincing) argument is also subjective. Someone could just respond with, "I like it." That would probably matter only to them, but their feelings would not be objectively wrong.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:15AM
Also, what qualifies as a good (convincing) argument is also subjective. Someone could just respond with, "I like it." That would probably matter only to them, but their feelings would not be objectively wrong.
If the aim is persuasion, "I like it" isn't really a convincing argument. That's not really subjective, given the definition of the word "argument."
Funny that. Words actually have meanings. How very bizarre.
From https://www.google.com/search?q=define+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com]
ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr