Hacker News Reader

Comment by thendrill | Hacker News Reader

If the year was 1950 your comment can sound something like:

"sure homosexuals don't bother anyone, and I am not saying it is wrong, but regardless of that I am uncomfortable about it and it feels icky and gross to me, and I think it should be wrong..."

Do you see the parallel?

View on HN

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26736478.

A more accurate parallel is posting images from social media to gay porn sites. Nothing is wrong with gayness or foot fetishism, but one can make a reasonable argument against using images for sexual gratification without the subject's knowledge or consent.

Personally, I don't think it can or should be policed. Any image could provoke a sexual response, and there's nothing to do about that short of not publishing images.

(also, some might object to your apparent conflation of homosexuality and fetishism).

My concern is more about being associated with a fetish site. If someone would republish pictures of my feet anonymously I could laugh about it, but I would be pretty upset if they post it with my name and birthday. I wouldn't want a WikiFeet page be the first thing my colleagues and clients see when they search my name. Even if I don't have a problem with it, others might and assume that those pictures where posted there by me.

That’s not at all the argument that was being made. I’m sure the grandparent poster would be more than happy for the content to stay up if they had the explicit consent of the people they’re collecting images of.

The images were publicly posted. How much more of a consent do we need?

The images are not altered only cropped.

According to this logic when journalists crop a picture of celebrities they should ask for dress designer consent to not include the dress?

Some people like faces some people like feet. Why do we need consent for liking a certain part of picture?

That does not automatically grant you the right to repost them elsewhere in a different context.

OK, and that might be a fair counterpoint, then. I don’t have a thought out opinion on that. What you said above was completely different however and did not follow.

It's not about consent but copyright. If I share a picture of me, this doesn't give anyone the right to repost it somewhere else.

Not at all. I'm not commenting on the fetish. I'm commenting on the lack of consent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com