Glad to hear the majority of Hacker News thinks it's ok to sexualize and catalog pictures of me without my consent. At least now I know who I'm dealing with here instead of merely suspecting it.
I don't want to sound like I'm defending the paparazzi or anything, but they are the source of many if not most of these pictures for the true celebrities. For better or worse, expose things to the public as a public figure and they're going to be catalogued by someone.
Wikifeet tries to ensure a person is actually a public figure via the IMDB requirement as there is really no objective and automated way to tell the difference. Should this woman qualify? She's been a well-known writer for over a decade, guest starred on several cable news shows, which is why she is on IMDB. Apparently, she's the woman who accused Chris Matthews of improper green room behavior, which led to his dismissal from MSNBC.
I can't say that means she deserves to lose all right to privacy forever, but that is unfortunately the tradeoff you make becoming even just a minor public figure, and she doesn't seem to mind. A person who really desires privacy can get some of it at least, more than this. Wikifeet doesn't allow anything like revenge porn or posting of hacked or stolen photos, and you can request to get them taken down if they belong to you.
Wikifeet also has a section of their site for people not classified as public figures, but you can only post pictures of yourself there and they're catalogued separately from the celebrities.
For what it's worth, if you go to her page, she seems to have posted more photos herself, which explicitly say they're dedicated to her fans on Wikifeet. And her site rating is up to 5 stars now.
The thing is that all her information are public. and if you type her name on google you will directly find her instagram which display the same photos
The issue danaliv is talking about is not the sharing of public information. It's the act of curation which adds additional meaning to that public information.
nonameiguess|4 years ago
Wikifeet tries to ensure a person is actually a public figure via the IMDB requirement as there is really no objective and automated way to tell the difference. Should this woman qualify? She's been a well-known writer for over a decade, guest starred on several cable news shows, which is why she is on IMDB. Apparently, she's the woman who accused Chris Matthews of improper green room behavior, which led to his dismissal from MSNBC.
I can't say that means she deserves to lose all right to privacy forever, but that is unfortunately the tradeoff you make becoming even just a minor public figure, and she doesn't seem to mind. A person who really desires privacy can get some of it at least, more than this. Wikifeet doesn't allow anything like revenge porn or posting of hacked or stolen photos, and you can request to get them taken down if they belong to you.
Wikifeet also has a section of their site for people not classified as public figures, but you can only post pictures of yourself there and they're catalogued separately from the celebrities.
For what it's worth, if you go to her page, she seems to have posted more photos herself, which explicitly say they're dedicated to her fans on Wikifeet. And her site rating is up to 5 stars now.
polote|4 years ago
rovolo|4 years ago
floatingatoll|4 years ago
whatshisface|4 years ago
udhdhxnxn|4 years ago
[deleted]