The dangers of sharing private pictures on the internet

[Guest-3]

If you can't understand the difference between showing your IRL friends a photo of a guy you are dating in a private chat and posting a picture of someone you had sex with on a forum I don't know what to tell you.

You are right. There is a difference. It's the exact same difference as sharing private, personal information about yourself with a family member or a friend, the people we trust, versus sharing that information with random strangers. It shouldn't even be debatable.

On the other hand, I quite enjoy reading about @JLBB 's sexual conquests. I find them quite entertaining. JLBB, to make @EvilLocks happy, how about you cover the face portion of the pics of the women you post? Keep your stories coming though.

[rclark]

If you throw in some weird font/bold/italic and an outdated stock image, anyone would be certain this is an rclark post.

Seriously what the fuck was that about.

If you add red colored font, it will look like a Rudiger post.

Just remember to say he's right.


Added in 6 minutes 1 second:

I actually recognize @JLBB 's new partner. I knew her in 2015. I was actually about to have sex with her but I found out that she has a couple STDs.

She does. Her mother has some to, I think that's where I got mine.

[EvilLocks]

You are right. There is a difference. It's the exact same difference as sharing private, personal information about yourself with a family member or a friend, the people we trust, versus sharing that information with random strangers. It shouldn't even be debatable.

On the other hand, I quite enjoy reading about @JLBB 's sexual conquests. I find them quite entertaining. JLBB, to make @EvilLocks happy, how about you cover the face portion of the pics of the women you post? Keep your stories coming though.

Yes.
I don't mind @JLBB sharing his stories either, I made it pretty clear from the start that it was just the picture I had a problem with. Even though I find his stories unnecessary I'm not going to riot against them and I can understand why some find them entertaining.
It's not about making me happy though, if that's the case nobody has learned anything. I will sleep fine at night despite this situation, I'm just saying if it was me I would not have approved of someone posting that about me.

[Guest-4]

If you add red colored font, it will look like a Rudiger post.

Just remember to say he's right.


Added in 6 minutes 1 second:


She does. Her mother has some to, I think that's where I got mine.

I laughed. Twice.

[Pat]

If you can't understand the difference between showing your IRL friends a photo of a guy you are dating in a private chat and posting a picture of someone you had sex with on a forum I don't know what to tell you.

Of course there are differences in two different situations. But in both situations you risk that people other than the people who you originally shared the info with get to know about your sexual conquests and use that info for malicious gossip. The difference is that in @JLBB case there's a chance a baldcel who lives on the other side of the world shares it along, whereas when you share with your friends there's a chance they gossip with someone who actually knows the person. So either both are degrading or none, that means you're a hypocrite when you share sexual stuff with your friends and would not trust someone doing the same on a different platform.

You are right. There is a difference. It's the exact same difference as sharing private, personal information about yourself with a family member or a friend, the people we trust, versus sharing that information with random strangers. It shouldn't even be debatable.

On the other hand, I quite enjoy reading about @JLBB 's sexual conquests. I find them quite entertaining. JLBB, to make @EvilLocks happy, how about you cover the face portion of the pics of the women you post? Keep your stories coming though.

Alright, so no one has betrayed your trust ever? This childlike logic when defending muh females is hilarious, and I can't even tell if you believe what you say yourself.

[EvilLocks]

This childlike logic when defending muh females is hilarious, and I can't even tell if you believe what you say yourself.

The only thing that's hilarious here is that once again, for like the billionth time, you resort to using the argument that because a man agrees with a female, he must be "defending" her, and not actually agreeing with her opinion. It's like it's impossible in your head that a man can share the same opinion as a female without having other intentions. Using this type of argument does not make you come across smarter, rather the opposite.

[Guest-3]

Alright, so no one has betrayed your trust ever? This childlike logic when defending muh females is hilarious, and I can't even tell if you believe what you say yourself.

What an idiotic argument. Do you not understand how probabilities work?? There is generally a lower probability of people we trust of betraying us compared to people we don't trust. I have such people in my life. For example, there is almost zero chance that my brother, parents and some close fiends will ever betray me. So yes, there is a difference between sharing my personal information with them compared to sharing that information with complete strangers. 'I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to not understand this basic difference.

The fact that you attempted to insult me by calling my argument "childlike" when in reality your augment was gutter trash makes you really pathetic. Get your head out of your ass you moron.

[Wire]

What an idiotic argument. Do you not understand how probabilities work?? There is generally a lower probability of people we trust of betraying us compared to people we don't trust. I have such people in my life. For example, there is almost zero chance that my brother, parents and some close fiends will ever betray me. So yes, there is a difference between sharing my personal information with them compared to sharing that information with complete strangers. 'I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to not understand this basic difference.

The fact that you attempted to insult me by calling my argument "childlike" when in reality your augment was gutter trash makes you really pathetic. Get your head out of your ass you moron.

Actually @Pat made an astute observation. It is correct that the probability of your close circle "betraying" you is much lower than a random person gossiping about a picture on the webs. However, the penalty of the close circle woman gossiping is probabilisticaly more since the the close circle woman is closer to the person being discussed. If you now take the average in each case ... you get the idea.

[Guest-3]

However, the penalty of the close circle woman gossiping is probabilisticaly more since the the close circle woman is closer to the person being discussed. If you now take the average in each case ... you get the idea.

What do you mean by penalty is probabilistic more? How do you quantify it?

I can't speak for EvilLocks, but there is almost zero chance that people who are close to me will ever betray me. Therefore, the probability of any "supposed penalty" is also almost zero. You may argue: "but that's your anecdotal experience". That still doesn't change the fact that there is almost zero chance that people who are as trustworthy as my friends/relatives are going to reveal your personal information to someone. It's irrelevant whether an individual has such people in his/her life or not. So there IS a difference between sharing things with them verses sharing things with random strangers.

[Admin]

What do you mean by penalty is probabilistic more? How do you quantify it?

Who navigates their life like this? Sure trust can be betrayed and in a tiny minority of cases, it will be very hard to see it coming. But even then it does not matter because you can't base the way you live your life on exceptions.

Trust is given and one should continue to give it no matter what. Of course that doesn't mean you should shoot in the dark and give it to every stranger you meet. That's where discernment comes into play. Who should we trust? One should be able to tell (again, we can't have certainty here). Like @pjhair, there is a handful of people in my life I would trust with my most intimate secrets, I'm almost entirely certain that they would never betray me.

For some people, it's really written on their forehead if you pay a little attention. That happened to me at my previous workplace for minor things, I thought it was obvious that I was confiding should remain private but the little weasel gossiped. The thing is, he did it with many people and once word gets around, he's out of the circle of people that can be trusted. Humans are actually very good at detecting this and become quite unforgiving as a result.

I see this "there's no way to know! You can't trust anyone!" as coming right out of black-pill thinking. For one, it's not true, and second, if you truly try to live your life like that, you'll end up bitter and isolated. I would also make it impossible for you to develop a happy intimate relationship. And God forbid too many people started acting like this in our society, it wouldn't take long before we would degenerate to the level of the societies outside the West, where suspicion and distrust are the norm.

[Pat]

The only thing that's hilarious here is that once again, for like the billionth time, you resort to using the argument that because a man agrees with a female, he must be "defending" her, and not actually agreeing with her opinion.

The reason I suspect whiteknighting isn't just because he's defending a female, as I said in my post it's also because the defense was weak.

It's like it's impossible in your head that a man can share the same opinion as a female without having other intentions. Using this type of argument does not make you come across smarter, rather the opposite.

I don't care how I come across, but if you care about coming across smarter an idea would be to respond to my entire post. When you don't it looks like you're unable to address it.

What an idiotic argument. Do you not understand how probabilities work?? There is generally a lower probability of people we trust of betraying us compared to people we don't trust. I have such people in my life. For example, there is almost zero chance that my brother, parents and some close fiends will ever betray me. So yes, there is a difference between sharing my personal information with them compared to sharing that information with complete strangers. 'I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to not understand this basic difference.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand so let me explain the different scenarios to you by making examples.

Situation 1: Picture of partner and description of sexual act is posted anonymously on a forum. Let's say that it gets 1k individual views. What is the probability that out of everyone in the world those 1k people are able to recognize the partner. Then add on top of that the probability any of them wants to use that information maliciously. Add on top of that the probability that person wants to reveal that he visits a forum for hairloss. I'd say it's virtually impossible.

Situation 2: Picture of partner and description of sexual act is posted in a messenger chat since that was used as an example earlier. In that messenger chat let's be conservatie and say there's 4 individuals who are likely to be in the same circle, city, and age as the partner. What is the probabiltiy that any of them share that information with their friends/girlfriend/bf etc? I'd say that's probable.

Also bare in mind that my original point is that if situation 1 is degrading and the person who did it can no longer be trusted, then situation 2 is the same. And that in turn makes a person condemning situation 1 while doing situation 2 a hypocrite. In my opinion none of these are degrading and when someone partakes in sexual activities it's pretty much a given that people will know about it.

The fact that you attempted to insult me by calling my argument "childlike" when in reality your augment was gutter trash makes you really pathetic. Get your head out of your ass you moron.

Insulting you and calling your argument childlike are two different things. You on the other hand are directly insulting me.

Actually @Pat made an astute observation. It is correct that the probability of your close circle "betraying" you is much lower than a random person gossiping about a picture on the webs. However, the penalty of the close circle woman gossiping is probabilisticaly more since the the close circle woman is closer to the person being discussed. If you now take the average in each case ... you get the idea.

Exactly. Nice to see someone is able to look at it objectively.

Trust is given and one should continue to give it no matter what. Of course that doesn't mean you should shoot in the dark and give it to every stranger you meet. That's where discernment comes into play. Who should we trust? One should be able to tell (again, we can't have certainty here). Like @pjhair, there is a handful of people in my life I would trust with my most intimate secrets, I'm almost entirely certain that they would never betray me.

Keyword almost. I never said you should not trust your friends, I said that there's a chance they will betray your trust.

[Guest-3]

Situation 2: Picture of partner and description of sexual act is posted in a messenger chat since that was used as an example earlier. In that messenger chat let's be conservatie and say there's 4 individuals who are likely to be in the same circle, city, and age as the partner. What is the probabiltiy that any of them share that information with their friends/girlfriend/bf etc? I'd say that's probable.

Nonsensical argument. If you ask ask trustworthy people to not share personal information about yourself with anyone, the probability that any of them will share that information drops to virtually zero. Yes, they can betray you but then they were not trustworthy to begin with. So unless you want to claim that the set of trustworthy people has zero elements in it, it will always be better to share personal information with people we trust compared to random strangers.

Insulting you and calling your argument childlike are two different things. You on the other hand are directly insulting me.

Spare me this semantics nonsense. You know very well what you were doing. Calling someones logic childlike implies an immature underdeveloped thought process. You could have simply written a counter argument to my position without adding that adjective. You are either a moron who doesn't understand implications of his own statements or a coward for simply pretending that you didn't mean insult when I called you out. Whatever the case, you deserve the insults that I laid upon you.

[yettee]

I agree with pj and evil and their posts here. But I'd like to add something. This debate seems to be centering around the chances that a person is going to be outted... someone's friend will betray trust, someone will find the photo in a forum and make a connection. But ... "if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there, does it make a sound"? Yeah, it does. And you know, having your photos out there on the open internet, forever, with a description of a sexual act you did, with comments about your mom having a sex disease, it's just not cool. Even if no one sees it who knows her, lots of people have already seen it, will see it. And it's archived, it'll be in wayback and google and whatever other servers until the end of time. It's just not cool, no one wants that.

[Guest-3]

I agree with pj and evil and their posts here. But I'd like to add something. This debate seems to be centering around the chances that a person is going to be outted... someone's friend will betray trust, someone will find the photo in a forum and make a connection. But ... "if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there, does it make a sound"? Yeah, it does. And you know, having your photos out there on the open internet, forever, with a description of a sexual act you did, with comments about your mom having a sex disease, it's just not cool. Even if no one sees it who knows her, lots of people have already seen it, will see it. And it's archived, it'll be in wayback and google and whatever other servers until the end of time. It's just not cool, no one wants that.

Another thing that @Pat fails to comprehend is that people don’t even have to come to this site to see the image and related information posted here. Reverse image search technology is already there. With rapidly improving algorithms, it wouldn’t be too hard to search all the pictures of an individuals on internet. @Afro_Vacancy even pointed it out earlier. The fact that Pat still thinks that posting pictures and personal information on internet is as innocuous as sharing them with people we are close to in real life is quite simply bizarre. It makes him sound like a nutjob.

He claimed that he suspects that I am white knighting @EvilLocks . Since he was generous enough to share his suspicion, I would also share mine. I suspect he is a moron and has an irrational bias against women. That explains his idiotic defense of his position.

[Admin]

"if a tree falls in a forest but no one is there, does it make a sound"?

If I may: no. If reality cannot be experienced, there is no reality, as someone has to be there to give to be there to give meaning to it. There is no way around human subjectivity.

Now you can go full postmodern yettee on that .

About what @JLBB did, of course it's immoral and it's no surprise many members here intuitively and immediately thought it was. I've made the same mistakes in the past and have been called out for it, before going full postmodern Fred on them, trying to justify myself, while of course I knew what I did was wrong.

That said, I think it's ultimately delusional to think you'll ever be safe on the internet or in this world in general. You might think of yourself as beyond reproach, until the times and the ways of the world change and you're now considered a terrible person for having an opinion that seemed safe at the time.

That's why I never refrain from just saying everything I think, because there's no point trying to protect yourself. For one I'd be selling my soul, and second, if you become a target, you could be a saint and it wouldn't matter, they'd find a way to get you.

Anyway, that does not mean you should be a dick and do whatever you want either. JLBB's post wasn't that gratuitous, it was a trade-off. He wanted to get a raise out of some members (and brag I guess) as he said. I have to admit that it made me laugh, in a 'Oh God I can't believe he did that!' manner.

I don't approve of it but it's a pretty minor offense on the hierarchy of internet sins. It's still wrong though, but it's good that we can point it out without implying he's a terrible person forever for doing that, like some people insist on doing in the current intenet zeitgeist. Let's just hope that one day he looks back on it and repents .