and my point still stands, just because nobody will stop you from doing something [I/]doesn't make it ok[/I] you could argue that merely looking at them isn't "as bad" as sharing because the former doesn't "contribute" to it or that the "blame" capacity acts like a pyramid (guy who "hacked" them and shared at the top) but its still not righto view naked photos of someone if you know that was not their intentionchadachada123 said:That's the part I don't understand.
Once a photo is shared, it's fair game, in the sense that it's impossible to police.
[quote/]It's the same with any nude photos, of which there are tens of thousands all over various sites.[/quote]
a lot of those nude images are probably consensual, we know for a fact the celebrity ones are not
[quote/]Is it the fact that the former were hacked while the latter were presumably released by the ex? I could understand the logical/legal difference,[/quote]
I never said there was one, though being released by an ex seems almost worse to me since its such a petty malicious thing to do
[quote/]but I'd disagree that it should be given any fucks just because *a famous person's* privacy was violated and the evidence spread.
I just don't get the "big deal" part. Privacy was invaded. Big whoop. Some member of 4chan threatens to do it further. Big whoop. Sucks for the parties involved, but its spread over the internet is not a big deal.[/quote]
maybe it [I/]hurts[/I] people? maybe its humiliating? maybe they feel violated? maybe it can seriously harm their reputation?