Is there a rule against questioning moderators' actions?

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Which is against current rules, never mind the new ones

Well... is it, though? Not arguing rules, just not sure she actually "posted" someone else's pictures.

Take this, for example:
https://forumfast.litimgs.com/data/avatars/o/6412/6412166.jpg?1657981580

That's my avatar. I did not download it from the Lit-Server, to then upload it to the Lit-Server, so it can be included here. I included it in this post by merely copying the image-link from the Lit-Server, to make it show the picture here as well as in my little avatar bubble.
That doesn't constitute "posting", distribution, nor replication. I merely found an image on the Lit-Server, and pointed at it.
It's the EXACT same thing as including the link to the image I uploaded for public viewing in the post, only that you don't have to click on it to see where the link leads.

Why not use her own picture?

Because her Avatar depicts a shrub, for Christ's sake. It wouldn't make a usable example to ask "Does this constitute nudity?".

 

[Saltfountain]

Well... is it, though? Not arguing rules, just not sure she actually "posted" someone else's pictures.

Take this, for example:
https://forumfast.litimgs.com/data/avatars/o/6412/6412166.jpg?1657981580

That's my avatar. I did not download it from the Lit-Server, to then upload it to the Lit-Server, so it can be included here. I included it in this post by merely copying the image-link from the Lit-Server, to make it show the picture here as well as in my little avatar bubble.
That doesn't constitute "posting", distribution, nor replication. I merely found an image on the Lit-Server, and pointed at it.

Two things...

It's yours, so there's no problem here, and she's already announced she was downloading avatars she liked so she could keep them...

Thanks for the heads up. I have begun taking screen shots of some, to me, appealing avatars that will disappear.

Because her Avatar wouldn't make a usable example to ask "Does this constitute nudity?".

She could have used another picture of herself that is hers and follows the rules...

You must have a legal right from the copyright owner to post any images - i.e. photographs/drawings that you yourself created and/or have a legal license or other legal permission to post. You retain all legal rights to your images when posting them on Literotica. You are only granting us a non-exclusive license to display them for as long as you leave them up on your account.

The above are from the forum posting rules...

She took a screenshot (and admitted it). It's lot a picture she held the copyright to.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Two things...

First: Yes, she said she was downloading pictures. Now... how exactly is that relevant to the topic? Whether that's creepy or not, it's not against the rules, is it?

Second: Thank you for ignoring the ENTIRETY of my post. Again, what she did was not "posting" anyone's images. She POINTED at an image that was ALREADY on the forum for public viewing.

 

[Saltfountain]

First: Yes, she said she was downloading pictures. Now... how exactly is that relevant to the topic?

Second: Thank you for ignoring the ENTIRETY of my post. Again, what she did was not "posting" anyone's images. She POINTED at an image that was ALREADY on the forum for public viewing.

She said she'd screenshotted AVs she liked so she could keep them.
She then used a screenshot and uploaded it to that thread.

Weird how the site owner thought it breached the rules and removed it, but I guess you know better

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

She said she'd screenshotted AVs she liked so she could keep them.

Not against the rules, though.

She then used a screenshot and uploaded it to that thread.

If that is true, then you are 100% correct. It's just not what it looked like to me.

Weird how the site owner thought it breached the rules and removed it, but I guess you know better

How do you know it was the site-owners who removed it? I thought it was JaFo, the notorious troll-mod who likes to shame and attack trans-people on this forum?
And, no, there's nothing weird about it. I found enough stories featuring ten-year-olds on this site to know that, sometimes, users know better than the ones who approve/disapprove content.

 

[Saltfountain]

How do you know it was the site-owners who removed it? I thought it was JaFo, the notorious troll-mod who likes to shame and attack trans-people on this forum?

Well, mods can only delete I forums they moderate.

And the forum it was posted on has no mod.

So the only people who can remove on that forum are Laurel and Manu. Who own the site...

Nice ad hominem attack on JaF0 BTW

Now... how exactly is that relevant to the topic?

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Well, mods can only delete I forums they moderate.

And the forum it was posted on has no mod.

So the only people who can remove on that forum are Laurel and Manu. Who own the site...

Oh! I never realized that forum doesn't have a mod.

Nice ad hominem attack on JaF0 BTW

Really? You have to question how mentioning the notorious troll-mod who told OP she is "asking to be banned" could be relevant in a thread about OP being told she is "asking to be banned"?

 

[Saltfountain]

Not against the rules, though.

No, as I already said. But it is against the norms of virtually every adult chat forum, and shows she has no respect for other users.

If that is true, then you are 100% correct. It's just not what it looked like to me.

Looks like it looked like that to the site owner though...

 

[Saltfountain]

Oh! I never realized that forum doesn't have a mod.



Really? You have to question how mentioning the notorious troll-mod who told OP she is "asking to be banned" could be relevant in a thread about OP being told she is "asking to be banned"?

Mate, keep defending someone who downloads people's nudes and reposts them so they no longer have control over that image all you want.

But stop trying to pretend she's innocent in this.

She could have taken the pic down when multiple people told her it was a) against site rules, and b) against the spirit of adult pic forums.

But she didn't. She ignored everyone, carried on posting in that thread and others about it, and left it up over 24hrs until it was removed for them.

Carry on being an enabler...

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If it’s posted on this site, it’s a porn pic. There is nothing private here. You don’t even need to be registered to see the forums.

I always find it odd that people seem to have expectations of privacy in places where there literally is none. This is as public a place as the town square. You walk around there, somebody snaps a photo of you, that’s not on them, lol.

No, you're wrong. "Who wants to see my dick?" is fine. "Who wants to see my wife's tits?" is wrong. If I pose nakey for my bf, or even if I send him a nudie all with the understanding that it's only for us to see, and then he takes it to the internet without my consent or even knowledge, that's rotten. It's also illegal and he might even go to jail for it (depending what jurisdiction he's in). Yes, this is the town square but if he took the same photo to work as a poster and showed everyone it would be just as rotten and just as illegal. If someone ends up suing someone over sharing unauthorized nudes, literotica could get named in the suit as the host.

So, no no no NO NO!! It's not allowed and for airtight solid reasons. NO!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Really? What other purpose would there be?

Oh come on, don't be a retard.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

Oh come on, don't be a retard.

I'm not. If you want to make rules based on the 1 in a million scenario where somebody takes a naked photo of themselves with zero intent for anybody else on the planet but them to see it and it somehow ends up here, that's fine. It's unnecessary, but it's fine. We should probably also make a rule here that it's not okay to put mustard on your toenails while viewing the site, if we're legislating based on 1 in a million scenarios.

But the reality is 99.9999999999999999999% of the nude photos taken in the world are taken with the intent that somebody other than the person in the photo is going to be looking at them. And if you take that photo and put it on the internet, you are fully expecting it to be viewed by somebody else, and the second you do that, the photo is in the public domain and it's going to get used however it gets used and your control over it has ended. Hell, it really ended the second you gave it to somebody else.

Yes, it's scummy if someone takes a photo shared with them in private and shares it. But that's not what I was talking about. The bottom line is the only way to ensure that this never happens is to not take the photograph in the first place. Once you do, it's pretty much over in terms of your agency over what happens next.

So, let's not kid ourselves, okay?

 

[BlackFlame112000]

First, a photo being uploaded to the internet does not automatically place it in the public domain. “Public domain” is a legal status where the creator explicitly relinquishes all rights to the work, or where copyright has expired. Uploading something to a platform.... even publicly....doesn’t mean you’ve given up your rights to it. Ownership and consent still matter, regardless of where the photo ends up.

Second, intent is not a blanket permission. Even if someone shares a nude photo with a partner or uploads it with the intention that some people will see it, that doesn't mean it's open season for any use. The difference between consensual sharing and non-consensual distribution or use is huge, both ethically and legally.

And yes, edge cases shouldn't drive all policy decisions..Buut privacy and consent aren’t "mustard-on-toenail" trivialities. They're foundational to any community that respects individual dignity.
The fact that a lot of people share intimate content doesn't mean they forfeit control over it. That logic leads down a very dangerous path.

So no, we shouldn’t “kid ourselves” but we also shouldn’t pretend that widespread behavior justifies disregarding consent or turning a blind eye to misuse.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

I'm not suggesting we do either. My comment was strictly based on the previous poster's claim that there are people out there taking nude photos of themselves without the intent that anybody but them is ever going to see it, which is ridiculous.

We can argue de facto or we can argue de jure. De jure, sure - a photo posted online still retains all the copyrights and the like legally speaking. But the de facto reality is that as soon as something goes up on the internet, it is no longer private. That includes email, that includes text messages, that includes everything. Why? Because you no longer can guarantee that the recipient is the only person who is ever going to see it.

If you take nude photos of yourself, you are taking a risk that those photos will be seen by people you didn't intend to see them. That's reality. Period.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm not. If you want to make rules based on the 1 in a million scenario where somebody takes a naked photo of themselves with zero intent for anybody else on the planet but them to see it and it somehow ends up here, that's fine. It's unnecessary, but it's fine.

Stop right there. Bullshit, and you know it. TONS of couples take private sexy pix for each other. TONS! You haven't had a bf (or gf) send you a naughty pic and then ask you to delete it just in case you lose your phone? This happens millions of times per day all over the world.

Don't even bother trying to continue this argument. I mean I don't even have to explain this. You already know. You're just doubling down to pretend that you're not flat out wrong.

 

[MiaBabe23]

But the reality is 99.9999999999999999999% of the nude photos taken in the world are taken with the intent that somebody other than the person in the photo is going to be looking at them. And if you take that photo and put it on the internet, you are fully expecting it to be viewed by somebody else, and the second you do that, the photo is in the public domain and it's going to get used however it gets used and your control over it has ended. Hell, it really ended the second you gave it to somebody else.

Hm. Interesting. So, since you like comparisons, what if someone managed to dox you here - you would fully support them having the right to send everything you’ve posted on here to your partner, employer, friends, without checking with you first, despite you - presumably - not wanting that to happen?
Because what you wrote is public, and you chose to say it here. So by your rationale, we have the right to share what you say with who we choose, and decide who sees it, right?
You’re giving up your right to control anything you share here?

Yes, it's scummy if someone takes a photo shared with them in private and shares it. But that's not what I was talking about. The bottom line is the only way to ensure that this never happens is to not take the photograph in the first place. Once you do, it's pretty much over in terms of your agency over what happens next.

Not true, not true legally, nor ethically, as per the very well explained points from BlackFlame above
And it only risks becoming the case where people give themselves permission in the way you’re trying to do here

 

[BlackFlame112000]

That’s the nature of digital content: Fragile boundaries, Slippery control.

But here’s the thing: acknowledging that risk doesn’t invalidate the intent behind the act.
People do take private nudes for themselves. Is it rare? Maybe. Is it ridiculous? Not at all. People journal privately. People record voice memos they never share. People absolutely take photos ..nude or not...for their own eyes only, whether as self-expression, self-discovery, or personal record.... TO DISMISS that possibility outright just because it’s not the norm is to conflate statistical majority with universal truth....that's just stupid

You're right that uploading anything online introduces risk. But risk doesn't negate consent. Just because people should understand that something might leak doesn’t mean others are entitled to use it however they want. That's like saying if you leave your car unlocked, it’s "on you" if someone steals it..

So yes, govern yourselves accordingly.....but that applies just as much to those handling private content as it does to those creating it. Acknowledging risk shouldn't lead to surrendering ethics

 

[Saltfountain]

I'm not suggesting we do either. My comment was strictly based on the previous poster's claim that there are people out there taking nude photos of themselves without the intent that anybody but them is ever going to see it, which is ridiculous.

We can argue de facto or we can argue de jure. De jure, sure - a photo posted online still retains all the copyrights and the like legally speaking. But the de facto reality is that as soon as something goes up on the internet, it is no longer private. That includes email, that includes text messages, that includes everything. Why? Because you no longer can guarantee that the recipient is the only person who is ever going to see it.

If you take nude photos of yourself, you are taking a risk that those photos will be seen by people you didn't intend to see them. That's reality. Period.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Your argument that she replied to, however, was

Really? What other purpose would there be?

The only purpose for nude pics was to show them to all and sundry according to you.

You know you're gaslighting, and you're enabling someone reposting a nude that doesn't belong to them so the original poster has no control over it on this forum...

 

[ToPleaseHim]

The fact that people share nude photos of themselves with individuals does not give those individuals license to share the images here or elsewhere. And that happens all the time. The fact that they trusted the wrong person or persons does not make it okay for their images to be shared without their permission.

As others have suggested, it is illegal in many places to do this. It seems logical that more and more legislation regarding revenge porn will come to be because this is common.

Sharing images on OnlyFans, SnapChat, Instagram, etc doesn’t give a recipient or viewer the right to download them and share them here as their own pictures. This also happens with some frequency.

All of this is against the rules of the site as they are currently written. This being against the rules is not changing.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

Stop right there. Bullshit, and you know it. TONS of couples take private sexy pix for each other. TONS! You haven't had a bf (or gf) send you a naughty pic and then ask you to delete it just in case you lose your phone? This happens millions of times per day all over the world.

Don't even bother trying to continue this argument. I mean I don't even have to explain this. You already know. You're just doubling down to pretend that you're not flat out wrong.

Do yourself a favor. Go back and read the statement that I quoted. Then read what I wrote in response to it.

Then ask yourself if anything you've said since then has anything to do with what I actually originally asked the guy who made that statement.

It doesn't.

That guy tried to argue that there are reasons why people would take naked photos of themselves with no intent that anybody but the person in the photo would see them. I found that hard to believe, for completely obvious reasons.

You blew up thinking I was somehow trying to defend somebody leaking private photos, which I wasn't and had nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm not suggesting we do either. My comment was strictly based on the previous poster's claim that there are people out there taking nude photos of themselves without the intent that anybody but them is ever going to see it, which is ridiculous.

And if you think that your right-to-see-unauthorized-nudes-on-the-internet is even a thing, you're a total asshole. Privacy is a thing. It's called human decency, and if someone violates it, human decency also dictates that it's NOT open season. "You took a private nude, so it's your fault that someone betrayed you," is total bullshit, and that attitude is reserved for self-serving assholes.

And the site has a right to protect itself over being involved as the host of such unauthorized and illegal behavior. Give your head a shake, bro. get real. Like in a hurry.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

Your argument that she replied to, however, was


The only purpose for nude pics was to show them to all and sundry according to you.

You know you're gaslighting, and you're enabling someone reposting a nude that doesn't belong to them so the original poster has no control over it on this forum...

Where did I say that?

You made a completely absurd statement and I asked you to explain what you said. You didn't.

It would be great if you guys would stop putting words in people's mouths and stop assuming the worst of everybody else.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

And if you think that your right-to-see-unauthorized-nudes-on-the-internet is even a thing, you're a total asshole. Privacy is a thing. It's called human decency, and if someone violates it, human decency also dictates that it's NOT open season. "You took a private nude, so it's your fault that someone betrayed you," is total bullshit, and that attitude is reserved for self-serving assholes.

And the site has a right to protect itself over being involved as the host of such unauthorized and illegal behavior. Give your head a shake, bro. get real. Like in a hurry.

For the love of God, where the hell did I say that?

You are nuts.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

That guy tried to argue that there are reasons why people would take naked photos of themselves with no intent that anybody but the person in the photo would see them. I found that hard to believe, for completely obvious reasons.

I've read every word. Stop trying to weasel out of this. I already debunked your theory. It's total complete nonsense that only one in a million nudes are not meant to be shared. If that's the sword that you're going to continue to thrust, I've already impaled you on it.

 

[BlackFlame112000]

Smh