you suggested that walking in the public street is the same as uploading photo into clear net…
i clarified that 1) quality of upload will be higher and 2) ID ability of current system is spotty
by uploading photos on faceberg you are training the current spotty systtem for ID into a better ID system.
TLDR. uploading high quality photos into social media under your name is not the same as walking down the street while having surveillance cameras take pictures of you.
What are the concrete risks that you are afraid of happening as a result of these technical differences? I understand that they are not LITERALLY the same thing. I don’t see how the risk profile is significantly different.
Uploading an image of your face to the internet is a less specific action than uploading an image of your face to Facebook. But in the latter case (kind of moving the goal posts, but we can still discuss it), the horse is already out of the barn! You’ve already surrendered your actual social network, your interests, the most intimate things about yourself to Facebook, if only by your browsing habits. It seems dumb to worry about having images on Facebook, WHILE BEING AN ACTIVE USER OF FACEBOOK. Surely the latter is far worse.
I would advocate that no one use Facebook for anything. And not sweat it if their face appears on the Internet.
I believe their point is that surveillance systems that are used to identify people are being trained on social media images and they don’t want those systems to be better. The point is not personal risk, but systemic/societal risk
correct. but there is also personal element… since the systems being sold would be trained your own pictures from socials.
versus person who does have as many pictures esp not under their own social media account, would be less likely to be correctly ID’ed by such system.
this is more of trust me bro, i am not an expert but i do know that denying the parasite date is always the right choice.
bottom line though, even if i opt out and all of you opt in, i still lose. herd has to reject the parasite as a whole for this tactic to be a real show stopper. most people are no there yet.
It was always that, partially because people didn’t want their livelihood affected by having nudes on the Internet. With the rise of an option where having nudes on the Internet can be their livelihood, there’s more faces in those pictures.
The better option would be for people to feel free to express themselves this way without worrying about their livelihood.
As someone who likes sex and to some degree exhibitionism:
Any amount of sex liking/photos of yourself online will bar you from certain jobs. I have a rather traumatic history of sex work - even the fact that I did it to survive is something that tars me. Doing things consensually and willingly is even worse.
The trade off for some is going to be financial. If having videos of yourself online could potentially ruin any change of a normal life - there needs to be something that secures some safety in return.
Being promiscuous is considered a character flaw. If you are frequently willing - the times where you are not have zero chance of being tried fairly in the court of public opinion.
The Madonna/whore complex fucks everyone over. Having lots of sex is fun, we’ve just come up with this dickish social rule system where enjoying receptive sex is a strongly ingrained societal “no no.”
Actually, when GW was formed, one of the rules was that you HAD to include your face. Different times though, I’m glad that obviously isn’t the case now.
now it’s just flashing genatils not even a face is attached to the body
Posting pictures of your face on clear net is stupid in 2025.
how is it different than walking around with your face uncovered in 2025
genitals are simultaneously visible. hope this helps.
fidelity of the data and certainty in identification of the subject
Care to elaborate? I’m not seeing whatever it is I’m meant to see that says it’s meaningfully different.
you suggested that walking in the public street is the same as uploading photo into clear net…
i clarified that 1) quality of upload will be higher and 2) ID ability of current system is spotty
by uploading photos on faceberg you are training the current spotty systtem for ID into a better ID system.
TLDR. uploading high quality photos into social media under your name is not the same as walking down the street while having surveillance cameras take pictures of you.
I think they mean: how is you looking at my naked body and face MY problem?
What are the concrete risks that you are afraid of happening as a result of these technical differences? I understand that they are not LITERALLY the same thing. I don’t see how the risk profile is significantly different.
Uploading an image of your face to the internet is a less specific action than uploading an image of your face to Facebook. But in the latter case (kind of moving the goal posts, but we can still discuss it), the horse is already out of the barn! You’ve already surrendered your actual social network, your interests, the most intimate things about yourself to Facebook, if only by your browsing habits. It seems dumb to worry about having images on Facebook, WHILE BEING AN ACTIVE USER OF FACEBOOK. Surely the latter is far worse.
I would advocate that no one use Facebook for anything. And not sweat it if their face appears on the Internet.
I believe their point is that surveillance systems that are used to identify people are being trained on social media images and they don’t want those systems to be better. The point is not personal risk, but systemic/societal risk
correct. but there is also personal element… since the systems being sold would be trained your own pictures from socials.
versus person who does have as many pictures esp not under their own social media account, would be less likely to be correctly ID’ed by such system.
this is more of trust me bro, i am not an expert but i do know that denying the parasite date is always the right choice.
bottom line though, even if i opt out and all of you opt in, i still lose. herd has to reject the parasite as a whole for this tactic to be a real show stopper. most people are no there yet.
It’s called GoneWild not Omegle to hide your face and flash your junk
It was always that, partially because people didn’t want their livelihood affected by having nudes on the Internet. With the rise of an option where having nudes on the Internet can be their livelihood, there’s more faces in those pictures.
The better option would be for people to feel free to express themselves this way without worrying about their livelihood.
As someone who likes sex and to some degree exhibitionism:
Any amount of sex liking/photos of yourself online will bar you from certain jobs. I have a rather traumatic history of sex work - even the fact that I did it to survive is something that tars me. Doing things consensually and willingly is even worse.
The trade off for some is going to be financial. If having videos of yourself online could potentially ruin any change of a normal life - there needs to be something that secures some safety in return.
Being promiscuous is considered a character flaw. If you are frequently willing - the times where you are not have zero chance of being tried fairly in the court of public opinion.
The Madonna/whore complex fucks everyone over. Having lots of sex is fun, we’ve just come up with this dickish social rule system where enjoying receptive sex is a strongly ingrained societal “no no.”
Actually, when GW was formed, one of the rules was that you HAD to include your face. Different times though, I’m glad that obviously isn’t the case now.