[HN Gopher] An interview with the man who keeps uploading my fee...
___________________________________________________________________
An interview with the man who keeps uploading my feet to WikiFeet
Author : Jugurtha
Score : 511 points
Date : 2021-04-08 06:19 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thecut.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thecut.com)
| sandos wrote:
| All this is very sweet for some reason. I mean, its not the guyfs
| fault, right, its just the way he is wired?
|
| Now, if it would have been 'young kids' instead of 'feet' it
| would be rather more unsettling. And I don't think many would
| think "its not his fault".
| drakonka wrote:
| Stealing photos to repost them on a fetish website without
| consent or license definitely is "the guy' fault".
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I'm not sure the point you are trying to make other than to try
| to normalize pedophilia.
|
| I'm for reducing the stigma around individuals who have
| pedophiliac thoughts but do not act on them but that is not
| what you are describing. You are talking about someone acting
| on them.
| xyst wrote:
| Some people like boobs, others like ass, and a subsection of
| people just love feet.
|
| I guess if you really think about it, adoring any body part is a
| "fetish". It's just socially acceptable to like tits or ass, and
| society has deemed adoration of feet as undesirable.
| ndespres wrote:
| Adoring the reproductive parts of our bodies seems like a
| normal biological response though being so fascinated by them
| that you would be a a contributor to WikiButt or whatever would
| also be strange to me.
|
| To fetishize the foot is something different.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What does reproductive mean here? Because faces, breasts,
| hair, and even butts aren't specifically part of the
| reproductive systems, but are all normally adored.
|
| I would think things that signal healthiness or contributors
| to increased chances of survival are subject to a biological
| response, rather than specifically reproductive parts. In
| which case, a foot devoid of issues can be a pretty big
| signal of healthiness, for example one not subject to bunions
| or flat footedness, etc.
| sadmann1 wrote:
| The internet was a mistake
| Pungsnigel wrote:
| Not if you have a fetisch for feet it seems...
| amelius wrote:
| Only because the internet doesn't transfer olfactory
| information.
| fctorial wrote:
| True
| yur3i__ wrote:
| My new rfc dropping tomorrow: hypersmell transfer protocol
| oblio wrote:
| Why? These people were always out there, it's better to take
| them out in the open and see what's there.
| person_of_color wrote:
| The internet has caused society to devolve into idiocracy.
| Curtis Yavin might be proved correct.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| There's nothing--and I never thought I would be writing this
| --idiocratic about the foot fetish people, who long-predate
| the internet, and if Mencius Moldbug says otherwise that's
| him showing his own limitations.
| oblio wrote:
| You have the causality the other way.
|
| Society was always idiocracy, it was just obscured. If
| anything, the internet is one of our hopes for improving
| things.
|
| But change is rarely short and painless.
| croon wrote:
| The main question I'm struggling with is whether "neutral"
| people get more or less stupid by being exposed to the
| previously obscured idiocy (or deliberate nonsense).
|
| The jury is still out on that.
|
| What has been clear over the last decade or two is that
| facts, reason and logic doesn't automatically win in the
| "marketplace of ideas".
| oblio wrote:
| In Romanian we say: "don't act stupid, you risk staying
| that way". So the folk wisdom would be that neutral
| people do get stupid. It makes sense, the brain is like a
| muscle, if you don't exercise it, it withers (at least a
| bit).
|
| And despite how we feel about it, the solution will
| probably be what we've always done: we promote what we
| think are good things and demote what we think are bad
| things (i.e. if you want to take it to the extreme, you
| can call it censorship, propaganda, etc.). The internet
| is also slowly getting filtered and I don't think we're
| losing much for it. Most of the stuff out there is
| garbage, as you've noticed.
| gpvos wrote:
| Ha, I just realized the same last week while listening to a
| podcast miniseries about the Habsburgs, who ruled a large
| part of Europe for about 1000 years, but not all of them
| were that bright.
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06cqzx5
| makach wrote:
| ..and what a wonderful mistake it is... and like children it
| will grow and make the most amazing, unexpected things! :heart:
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| :-D
|
| But tbh
|
| > I'm not hurting anybody, I'm not robbing banks. Just let it
| ride.
|
| He's got a point there. Better this than some pedophile bbs on
| tor.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Are peeping toms hurting people?
| reedf1 wrote:
| Voyeurism is illegal in most places, are you saying that is
| what this is?
| iso1631 wrote:
| Something being illegal and something hurting someone are
| two separate things.
| suifbwish wrote:
| If you base what is right and wrong of what is illegal
| you make the perfect model citizen for any dictatorship.
| Have fun with that.
| thendrill wrote:
| As long as you don't frame it as data gathering for
| targeted ads.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Sure, it's a privacy invasion.
| mrweasel wrote:
| This article gives me the opposite impression, this is exactly
| what the internet should be. There are people out there who
| just like feet, and now they have a community, a place to meet
| others who share their interests (and fetishes).
|
| WikiFeet even have reasonable rules, only post people who have
| an IMDB profile. I'm sure there are a bunch of rules they
| violate, in terms of copyright and so on, but they're at least
| trying to be reasonable and impose some guidelines that aren't
| total off.
|
| It awesome and the interview with the guy just makes it better.
| He's not trying to hurt anyone, he's aware of the issues and
| have good answers. It's wonderful that for once you do get this
| retard answers as to why. Mostly it's just idiots who answer "I
| don't know" or "I just felt like it".
|
| I absolutely love this, that article made me a little happier
| this morning.
| bvm wrote:
| The guy did say he just creates an IMDB page of someone when
| he wants to upload their feet though which does render that
| rule...well not pointless but not exactly point...ful?
| ptha wrote:
| From the article: _and I'll put her name in IMDb. And she
| didn't have a page, so I couldn't post hers._
|
| I would take the: "put her name in IMDB" to mean he just
| did a search. On first reading like you I did think that
| meant he created an IMDB entry, but the 2nd part of the
| sentence changed my mind.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| andsens wrote:
| Yeah, I misread it the same way you did. He meant that he
| was just searching for her name, he wasn't creating a page
| for her.
| danaliv wrote:
| 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.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| 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.
| polote wrote:
| 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
| floatingatoll wrote:
| Finding someone's name in a phonebook doesn't give you
| permission to represent yourself as them.
| rovolo wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If I had to guess, they're taking the tone of the author for
| granted, as an authority on how they're supposed to feel about
| it.
| udhdhxnxn wrote:
| Don't post your sexy feet online and you won't get creeps
| viewing them
| icha wrote:
| This article is so absurd it feels surreal reading it.
| alexseman wrote:
| More and more s*t content on HN as years go by...
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I found it interesting , reading for the umpteenth time why
| Smalltalk or LISP failed to get traction get's boring after a
| while.
| errantspark wrote:
| I genuinely laughed out loud reading this comment. Much love.
| jancsika wrote:
| > I don't really get anything out of it. I just like to share it.
| I mean, people like feet, like me, and you have beautiful feet,
| and I just put it on there. I just think I'm helping other people
| out. I mean, I do save some for myself.
|
| Yet Sci-hub is not legal.
|
| I think I'm in the wrong timeline.
|
| Are there others out like me?
|
| Where do you go to chat, and may I chat there, please?
| pkrotich wrote:
| Great article- I appreciate how pleasant both parties were!
|
| Some of us, admittedly, like women with nice ass. I think feet is
| less creepy if you really think about it. But to each to their
| own!
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Liking people's bodies isn't creepy.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| True, but collecting sexual photos of them and rating them
| may be.
| ivanche wrote:
| Irony is that The Facebook started exactly like that.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Are photos of people's faces sexual? (obviously not a
| photo of a face associated with a sexual act, which I
| assume facebook's original websites were not)
| prvc wrote:
| Interesting that here is yet another site that depends on IMDB in
| an essential way. I wonder what happens to that whole ecosystem
| if the database becomes more limited in how it can be accessed,
| or if it stops being updated and maintained in the same way.
| jonathanESSAY wrote:
| <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>RNMA's dive into electric, hybrid, and
| autonomous vehicles can be seen as a form of</p> <!--
| /wp:paragraph -->
|
| <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Multiple Choice</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph
| -->
|
| <!-- wp:list --> <ul><li>mass customization.</li><li>breakaway
| positioning.</li><li>competitive
| parity.</li><li>harvesting.</li><li>reverse
| positioning.</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list -->
| https://essaywritingg.us/blog/uncategorized/renault-electric...
| [deleted]
| yosito wrote:
| TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists.
|
| I believe everyone has a right to their own fetishes. Nothing
| wrong with being into feet. But the thing that really puts me off
| about this interview and the WikiFeet website is the lack of
| consent. Uploading photos of someone without their consent is
| wrong. The fact that the purpose is to satisfy a fetish adds an
| extra layer of creepy. Regardless of how the interviewer feels
| about it, and regardless of whether the photos came from a public
| Instagram account, it's not ok to upload photos of someone to a
| fetish website without their consent.
| BTCOG wrote:
| While I'd agree that if he were sneaking into women's houses,
| snapping "candid" photos with no permission it would be one
| thing, but why do people entirely miss that this woman was
| posting all these pictures of her own feet on the internet? If
| anything, all this showcases in my opinion is how people share
| WAY too much personal info and then something like this can
| make them think twice about doing so.
| somedude895 wrote:
| > I noticed that wikiFeet has pretty strict rules about whose
| feet and what kinds of photos you can post. The person has to
| have an IMDb page to be fair game. Do you pay attention to
| those rules when you want to post someone like me, who isn't as
| well-known?
|
| > Yeah. For example, a musician from England who performed
| barefoot, like I'll find a picture I think is sexy, and I'll
| put her name in IMDb. And she didn't have a page, so I couldn't
| post hers. But you did.
|
| I feel the same way, but this seems to me to be a rule to make
| sure that only pictures of people who have considerable public
| exposure to begin with are okay to be posted, which seems
| sensible to me.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| > But the thing that really puts me off about this interview
| and the WikiFeet website is the lack of consent.
|
| A bit of a harsh, knee-jeek reaction to something entirely
| meaningless. Topped with a vague proposition of privacy in a
| public forum.
|
| It's just feet. Unless someone knows you, your "privacy" isn't
| likely to be in peril from a site filled with feet.
| yosito wrote:
| It's not about the feet. It's about the lack of consent. It
| troubles me that you don't see a problem with that.
| mikem170 wrote:
| You used the word creepy to describe the wikifeet site,
| which might lead people to think that you are motivated by
| prudish reasons.
|
| From a legal consent perspective are you also opposed to
| google image search for the same reasons, that google did
| not get consent to redisplay the resulting images? What
| about pictures of public personas in news articles where
| consent was not given? Could I prevent my friends from
| posting unflattering pictures of me? What if I google
| images of feet to get off on? Maybe consent should apply to
| audio and written information, so people are not quoted out
| of context?
|
| The legalities around consent seem to get complicated, and
| conflict with other legal precedent. Also you might have a
| hard time convincing other people of the harm in feet pics,
| and that might be the first thing you need to do to get a
| law passed against it.
| [deleted]
| camillomiller wrote:
| I do not agree. These are photos posted publicly on Instagram
| or Facebook. Anyone could see them. This website just
| aggregates them, but there's technically a live link to these
| pictures. And no, the fact that someone uploads them to a
| service whose ToS they have accepted makes no difference.
| You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit
| consent that you want people to see them. If those pics were
| behind even the slightest wall (like a private account) or
| taken from private messages of course that would be different.
| watwut wrote:
| It does not work that way, not even legally. Just because a
| picture is online does not mean anyone is free to distribute
| it further.
|
| The legality of it depends on copyright and on TOS of places
| where it was uploaded originally.
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| >You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit
| consent that you want people to see them.
|
| To see them _where I posted them_. Pictures are an
| intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other
| people to spread them, he /she needs to explicitly set the
| allowing license. Copyright, fair use and such is a hot and
| nuanced topic, but the bottom line here is that personal
| pictures getting shared is not what most people expect to
| happen, understandably so.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| well these are tears of the RIAA and MPAA aren't they? Its
| not like we solved those problems beyond DMCA takedowns, a
| legal hammer that was ineffective at scale or new services
| that made copyright infringement the worser product.
|
| We exist in the age of information and the age of mash ups,
| there is nothing _technically_ stopping these people from
| doing this so to do so we need to _create_ something to do
| this. Otherwise we're just being previous with a "why isn't
| the internet like this..." whine.
|
| The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to
| spend public money on enforcing personal copyright by
| making it a crime that we enforce? It's understandable when
| it comes to content people don't post themselves (e.g.
| personal porn) but its much greyer here where they post it
| here but don't like seeing it there.
|
| I would imagine the only way this works today is for the
| victim to make a DMCA claim and what's wrong with that
| approach? I feel like given the current age and technology
| its an appropriate solution for now given the considerably
| lower impact this case arguably has.
|
| EDIT: people downvoting that merely disagree need to get
| poked in the eye with rose thorns tbh. I ain't being
| offtopic, I'm pulling in further references, I'm positing,
| I'm asking questions. What on earth is wrong with that?
| Bloody eternal September...
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| On this website, downvotes for disagreement are allowed.
| Take a deep breath, downvotes don't hurt.
| simias wrote:
| Downvoting for disagreement is toxic to discourse and how
| echo chambers like Reddit are born. It may be tolerated
| but it shouldn't be encouraged IMO.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I agree, but fwiw pg (the HN founder) encouraged
| downvoting for disagreement.
|
| I railed against it to, but as pg endorses it I think
| we're stuck with it.
|
| The best sort of voting I've seen is multi-dimensional
| Slashdot-style voting where users can individually model
| there own comment visibility metrics.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| its actually part of redditquette to _not_ downvote when
| disagreeing. Granted, lots of people ignore redditquette
| but the convention is there.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| And before anyone says differently, this is pgs stance on
| it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
| Perseids wrote:
| I don't think an eleven year old statement about the
| status quo is a good source. We've since seen many more
| examples about how removing contrary opinions from the
| discussion creates places with negative utility. And lest
| anyone thinks otherwise: Making text harder to read and
| easier to scroll over is a clear signal to ignore the
| comment.
|
| In my opinion downvotes are best used for purposes of
| moderation, to remove comments that poison the
| discussion.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| it greys the comment out though and makes it less
| discoverable though.
|
| For example, the issue is that it permits "tyranny by
| majority". Imagine, if you will a 1950s America where
| people are trying to post about civil rights and being
| downvoted into invisibility.
|
| I just want to encourage the art of _not_ pressing either
| button. Its fine for things to exist that you don't agree
| with.
| johnday wrote:
| > Imagine, if you will a 1950s America where people are
| trying to post about civil rights and being downvoted
| into invisibility.
|
| Are you labouring under the misapprehension that there
| were no civil rights leaders before the 1950s, and this
| was not _exactly_ what happened to them?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| No. I am stating that this attitude of "downvote when
| disagreeing" could lead to structural discrimination
| against minorities. That is exactly what I'm saying,
| nothing more, nothing less.
| batch12 wrote:
| Impressive leap of logic to deem downvoting racist. This
| seems to be the final argument nowadays when all else
| fails.
|
| As a side note, I have often wished folks could see their
| downvote count or at least an upvote to downvote ratio.
| In the past I wondered if I was quicker to downvote, when
| I had the ability, than upvote.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > Impressive leap of logic to deem downvoting racist.
| This seems to be the final argument nowadays when all
| else fails.
|
| I think that's cold for you to wilfuly misinterpret my
| point so. Fine, we'll apply it to the gold standard. In
| news.y for the 1800s someone recommending moving away
| from the gold standard would get downvoted to hell by
| those that "disagree". Their comment would grey and
| vanish to most.
|
| By encouraging downvoting disagreements you encourage
| large consensus to shut out contradictory voices by
| downvoting them, regardless of the voracity of their
| arguments. This means that all voices are significantly
| constrained by the habits of the present as opposed to
| attempts at deriving truths that are correct regardless
| of the age.
|
| IMO downvoting for disagreement is entitled behaviour
| because its greedily taking an extra vote. You get an
| upvote for agreement, to upvote AND downvote is two
| votes. Why should some people get two votes?
| batch12 wrote:
| > "downvote when disagreeing" could lead to structural
| discrimination against minorities.
|
| I don't see what I wrote as a willful misinterpretation.
| I guess I could have added sexist, homophobic, etc to the
| list.
|
| As for downvoting in general, I may not be able to fully
| appreciate your argument because of a fundamental
| difference in expectations. I don't really care about
| downvotes or upvotes or any other fake internet
| validation of my value. If people want to flag my
| comments or vote them up or down, fine. I don't see
| downvotes for disagreement as a way to oppress me. The
| rules on this site allow downvoting for disagreement and
| I chose to comment here.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| > I don't see what I wrote as a willful
| misinterpretation.
|
| You were acting exasperated that I mentioned race but the
| example I chose wasn't relevant to the discussion.
| Apologies for choosing a contentious subject but in my
| defence you did write.
|
| > This seems to be the final argument nowadays when all
| else fails.
|
| Where you are stating my points have all failed and I'm
| grasping at straws: RUDE.
|
| > I don't really care about downvotes or upvotes or any
| other fake internet validation of my value.
|
| Neither do I and you're missing the point if you
| interpret it as karma-whoring. The point isn't you and
| isn't me, its the impact on the readers, the lurkers, on
| the 80% (us that write comments are always a minority)
| and if spread broadly enough: society. Its an outcome
| that prizes public consensus of a view over its voracity
| and I think that's a poor guideline to have in the coffee
| shops of the modern era.
| batch12 wrote:
| I don't think we'll come to an agreement, but I
| appreciate you taking the time to explain your
| perspective.
|
| Edit: And I apologize if what I wrote came off as rude.
| It was more an observation of current events that got
| directed at you. I'll try and do better.
| throwaways885 wrote:
| Turn showdead on. I too, am concerned about some of the
| groupthink on HN, but it's not as severe as you'd
| suspect. What I do disagree with is comments being
| flagged/obliterated for simply being unpopular.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Sure they don't hurt but they encourage a combative world
| of discussion where brigading matters more than words.
| quotemstr wrote:
| > Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a
| person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to
| explicitly set the allowing license.
|
| It's more complicated than that. What actions require a
| license? Nobody needs a license to create a hyperlink. The
| concept of a "link license" was a big subject of debate in
| the 1990s, but after much hand-wringing and heated
| discussion, we converged on a permissionless model for
| hyperlinking on the web. I think everyone here understands
| the high value of frictionless linking.
|
| Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without
| loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a
| list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures _in
| their original context_. I suspect the author of the
| article (and a lot of other people) would still be squicked
| out by the foot-fetishist link-aggregator site. But what
| could be done about it? Permissioneless linking is a huge
| boon for the web and humanity. Should we add friction to
| linking just because foot fetish sites exist?
|
| Okay --- what if it's not linking, but actual photo
| embedding? Still, we'd need to examine the costs and
| benefits. Embedding public content in another context is
| great for commentary, synthesis, and other creative
| transformations. People love to showcase hard work and
| beauty. Should we add friction to photo embeds everywhere
| just because some squicky foot fetishists use embeds to
| aggregate images? Again, it doesn't seem worth it.
|
| Ultimately, we have to learn to let things go. There will
| always be people in the world who use public things in a
| "wrong" way: a politician you don't like may use your
| favorite song in a campaign; a company might use your open
| source library to make a product you'd prefer not to exist;
| or public property records might let speculators arbitrage
| prices in a way that seems unfair. But whenever we're
| tempted to _Do Something_ about people using the public
| thing in the wrong way, we have to think "is this _Doing
| Something_ going to be net positive? What about the value
| of the commons itself? Am I willing to destroy that just to
| _Do Something_ about this one thing? " Most of the time,
| the answer is "no".
| furyg3 wrote:
| > Let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without
| loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just
| a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures
| in their original context.
|
| Let's not suppose this. This site does not do this. It
| doesn't show photos in their original context (e.g.
| Instagram), nor does it even display the 'original' image
| (meaning IG hosted image) out of context - which would
| also be wrong.
|
| It's primary use case is to literally re-host unlicensed
| images out of their original context without permission
| (even though it's 'rules' state otherwise).
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| > Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without
| loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just
| a list of hyperlinks
|
| That's a huge loss of generality.
| enriquto wrote:
| > That's a huge loss of generality.
|
| Not really. It's just a couple of innocent javascript
| lines away (on a browser extension) to the site with
| visible photos.
| bidirectional wrote:
| Well no, in the article the author mentions pictures
| posted to their Instagram story. These images are only
| publicly visible for 24 hours, and I imagine Instagram
| also does some manouevering to stop them being easily
| linkable.
|
| Also the obvious massive difference that such a model
| would allow the original poster to delete the image.
| quotemstr wrote:
| > That's a huge loss of generality.
|
| I don't think so. The author's core discomfort (to which
| I'm sympathetic) seems to not be about the image hosting,
| but about people enjoying pictures of her feet in a way
| that makes her uncomfortable. I don't think that wikiFeet
| moving to a hyperlink model would alleviate the author's
| discomfort with wikiFeet existing, so we need to talk
| about that core discomfort, not about the specific
| mechanics of image sharing.
| drakonka wrote:
| Of course it would alleviate discomfort - it would allow
| the author to retain full control of their image. They
| could, with a couple of taps, delete the image and
| prevent its propagation on a fetish website.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Or, up until recently, block based on referrer; or block
| based on IP address (eg limit it to one ISP that all
| their family use).
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| >Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without
| loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just
| a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures
| in their original context. I suspect the author of the
| article (and a lot of other people) would still be
| squicked out by the foot-fetishist link-aggregator site
|
| Yep, what furyg3 said. I always think about cases like
| that from a creator perspective. If I'm a painter, I
| probably sell my work, so it's in my interest that every
| usage lead back to a canonical place where I expect to
| make sales/build following/communicate with fans. So
| reposting a picture and posting a link to a said place I
| _chose_ are absolutely different things.
|
| There's always fair use, which should cover things like
| education, citation, etc. That's a different topic.
|
| And don't get me wrong, copyright system is broken and
| rotten to the core, but some of the concerns on which it
| builds are perfectly reasonable.
| Igelau wrote:
| > There's always fair use, which should cover things like
| education, citation, etc. That's a different topic.
|
| This is the weird part. If aliens showed up and started
| viewing the site in question, they'd probably mistake it
| for reference material, some kind of critical
| encyclopedia.
| will4274 wrote:
| > intellectual property of the author
|
| Don't you assign this copyright to the social media
| service? Legally, if your Facebook photos get posted to
| another site, I think Facebook gets to complain, but not
| you - you signed those photos away, for Facebook to use for
| any purpose they like (even including a foot fetish
| website).
|
| I don't disagree with you on what people expect, but it's
| worth reiterating that reality does not match their
| expectations. Facebook owns your Facebook photos, not you.
| greenyoda wrote:
| > Don't you assign this copyright to the social media
| service?
|
| Most of the terms-of-service agreements I've seen state
| that the creator retains the copyright, but grants the
| site a non-exclusive license to display the content.
|
| Assigning the copyright would be problematic. For
| example, a professional photographer who posted their
| photo to Facebook would lose their right to sell the
| photo or post it to another site if they didn't retain
| the copyright.
| akudha wrote:
| I agree with you, in theory. But the real world is messy.
| There are only two choices here - don't participate in
| social media. Or if you do, don't expect everyone to
| respect your privacy. It sucks, but that's the world we
| live in.
|
| Parents post pics of their babies all the time. It would be
| easy to make wikibabies, like wikifeet. Who is at fault in
| this case? At least this lady is an adult and posted her
| own pics.
|
| Real world is messy...
| kenneth wrote:
| Alright then, for the sake of argument then how would you
| feel if there was a website named "wikipedo" where people
| take the normal photos of children posted on social media and
| aggregate them thusly with a vastly different intent?
| FDSGSG wrote:
| That would be confusing, what would we call enthusiastic
| wikipedia users then?
| camillomiller wrote:
| Getting off to feet is part of broader adult sexual
| freedom. You can't compare it pedophilia, c'mon.
| f1refly wrote:
| Getting off to feet is generally considered weird but okay,
| getting off to children is not. Your comparison is not
| applicable.
| kevincox wrote:
| A lot of the responses to this comments are focusing on
| licensing which I think is missing the interesting point of
| this thought. I agree that many of the images here are likely
| copyright infringement but this is not a new, unique or
| interesting problem.
|
| Imagine that instead of rehosting the images they just linked
| to the original source on social media. This is now legal,
| but is it "right" to aggregate images under this context?
| furyg3 wrote:
| Sorry, but no. First there is the question of licensing. The
| users are posting (and site is hosting) images that they
| (presumably) don't have licenses to use or permission to post
| to that site. A photograph being publicly available does not
| put it in the public domain, and certainly doesn't mean that
| a site is licensed to run ads on it (though even without
| financial gain it would still not be legally ok).
|
| The very first site rule is "uploading copyrighted photos is
| forbidden unless you have permission from the copyright
| owner" which I presume is supposed to shield the site owner
| from this legal issue, but I think we can all agree that the
| vast majority of photos on this site do not meet this
| requirement.
|
| And secondly there is the question of context. I may give my
| employer permission to put my photo on their "About Us" page,
| but I would not be amused if the later transferred it to a
| "Consultants who we will never work with again" page.
| kevincox wrote:
| I don't think the original poster is talking about
| licensing. It is an issue, but not unique to sites like
| this and not relevant to the parent's concerns. What if
| this site just linked to the photos instead? I think that
| would still make people uncomfortable and is not illegal.
|
| Context is the problem and it is unclear. In most countries
| you can't really prevent people from saying things about
| you. If someone wants to post online that they like you
| feet they are allowed to do so. I agree that when this is
| distilled to a database of people and their feet it feels a
| bit weird, but I struggle to find a point where it becomes
| not ok.
| furyg3 wrote:
| I don't get why this is so tough. It's ok for someone to
| talk about how they like your feet... until the point
| where they start posting images of your feet without
| 'permission' (permission in the legal sense refers to
| licensing).
| tobr wrote:
| Strongly disagree, both from a legal and moral point of view.
| Posting something publicly absolutely does not imply that
| anyone is free to do whatever they want with it.
| contravariant wrote:
| Case in point: the existence of copyright licenses.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| Let's say you have a LinkedIn profile picture, and someone
| posts that picture to a site about people who look like they
| might be pedophiles. Would you be ok with that?
| kevincox wrote:
| That is very different. That is implying that you may be a
| pedofile which is unpleasant whether or not there is a
| photo and whether or no anyone else even sees it.
|
| This is saying that you have nice feet, which may make some
| people uncomfortable, and isn't necessary "right", but is
| completely different.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| It's unwanted attention on the internet. I think it's
| fine to make fun of people who look like pedopohiles (not
| saying you _are_ a pedophile, that would be libel
| probably). Some people have a problem with it, but I don
| 't, so what's the big deal?
| yosito wrote:
| When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly
| consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes,
| even privately. I can't stop people from doing what they want
| privately with my public photos, and I know that, but I still
| find it morally wrong and disturbing. But I'm not sure that
| it's legal to republish someone's public Instagram photos on
| another website either. I'm no legal expert, but I believe
| it's still a copyright violation to copy someone's Instagram
| photos and use them as content in your own creations.
|
| But legal or not, I think it ought to be considered common
| decency not to post photos of someone on a fetish website
| without asking for their explicit permission to do so.
| pojzon wrote:
| At least in EU - the platform is responsible for the
| content their users upload.
|
| So based on that posting personal information like address,
| name, age etc. Without consent can put this site out of
| business after few fines.
| f1refly wrote:
| > When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly
| consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes,
| even privately.
|
| Well, they're in facebooks domain now, so you really don't
| have a tell in whats okay and what not after you uploaded
| them[0].
|
| > but I still find it morally wrong and disturbing.
|
| that's okay of course, but it obviously won't stop anyone
| from doing anything they deem okay and acceptable. How are
| the supposed to know what _you_ find morally wrong and
| disturbing, anyways? For all they know those pictures are
| public and you want to present yourself to the world.
|
| > legal to republish someone's public Instagram photos
|
| According to the link that's instagrams business, not
| yours. If facebook doesn't care then there's not much you
| can do about it since you don't have royalities over the
| pictures in which you appear.
|
| > But legal or not, I think it ought to be considered
| common decency not to post photos of someone on a fetish
| website without asking for their explicit permission to do
| so
|
| Some people would consider "not poisoning the public water
| supplies forever" common human decency, but that doesn't
| stop multiple actors from doing so. "human decency" is not
| worth a penny on the internet, which is in my opinion
| common knowledge that we try to teach kids in primary
| school here. It does not matter what you think, since it's
| out of your hands you made your data public.
|
| [0] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2249952
| /Face...
| throw14082020 wrote:
| Totally, but its such a grey line. If you posted some
| pictures and certain groups use it as their "personal
| materials" privately (without sharing), I'm not sure how we
| can stop that
| enriquto wrote:
| What if it was just text links to the instagram accounts?
| What if it was iframes?
| nindalf wrote:
| I think this would be better because the person who owns
| the photograph still has control. They can delete the
| original post and have it disappear from wikifeet.
| Consent is best. The next best thing is control. A
| screenshot is neither.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| 1. bet iframing instagram content will lead to iframe
| busting and maybe site being cease and desisted.
|
| 2. text links sure, because it has a whole other behavior
| and then if someone wants they can take the picture down,
| make it private or whatever. same thing for iframe but I
| bet it won't happen there because instagram itself will
| shut down the iframing reeaaalll quick.
|
| so in short, yes, if it was a bunch of other things that
| have some similarities but are not exactly the same it
| would probably be ok with people.
| yosito wrote:
| Again, legal, but not a nice or decent thing to do.
| enriquto wrote:
| So, OK basically? Indecent things are allowed. You can
| criticize them, of course, but they are still allowed.
|
| People have the right to write non-nice things about you
| (as long as it's not libel). They can write that they
| don't like you for whatever reason, or they can write
| that they get off thinking about you. There's freedom of
| expression to do stupid, non-nice and indecent shit.
| batiudrami wrote:
| What is that expression? Something like "if your best
| defence of something is that it isn't against the law you
| have already lost"
| enriquto wrote:
| If that is the case, it means that the people who attack
| you have already lost as well.
| batiudrami wrote:
| what?
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| No one is saying it's not legal. Most people here
| understand what libel is and what freedom of expression
| is.
|
| The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and
| unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can
| continue thinking he's quite damaged.
| enriquto wrote:
| > The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and
| unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can
| continue thinking he's quite damaged.
|
| That's alright. I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole
| thing, but I still enjoyed the interview. Notice that the
| man may be "quite damaged", but still the first thing
| that he does is _ask_ the interviewer if she was offended
| by her public photos being there, and offering to delete
| them.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| Enjoying the interview is utterly orthogonal to the point
| you originally made.
|
| > "ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public
| photos being there, and offering to delete them."
|
| You may see that as being polite, I see that as just
| another creepy power play, where he's now implying he has
| control over her pics.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| The fact that the asking bit comes after the pictures
| have already been repurposed is the entire point. If he
| would have asked beforehand and gotten permission no one
| would care.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| He didn't offer to delete them. He offered "not to do it
| again." Which means she is stuck.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly
| consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes,
| even privately.
|
| I agree with you, morally. However, there is no hope of
| controlling what someone thinks when looking at your
| uploaded photos.
| gjulianm wrote:
| > This website just aggregates them, but there's technically
| a live link to these pictures.
|
| What you see as a technicality is actually a big difference.
| No one on wikiFeet would have seen the pictures of the
| interviewer if someone hadn't posted it.
|
| Posting something is not explicit consent to do whatever with
| it. Would you say the same if these pictures were appearing
| on a shirt for example? Or if they were used in a movie, or
| in a newspaper article?
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Is this much different from what Pinterest and Google
| images do?
| [deleted]
| red_trumpet wrote:
| I think there are two dimensions. The personal consent one,
| where I do not agree with your opinion, but that's okay.
|
| On the other hand, copying a picture to another website can
| also be a copyright infringement.
| yosito wrote:
| How would you feel if you walked by a porn shop, and in the
| window you saw a magazine cover with a photo of you taken
| from your public social media accounts printed on the cover
| with the headline, "Hottest people on Instagram to get off
| to in 2021". Some people may be flattered by that, but
| many, many people would feel that it was a violation and an
| assault to their dignity.
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| If you look at this hypothetical case without prejudice,
| the only difference with your photo appearing on a news
| site, in someone's post on social media, as a picture on
| some forum or just being uploaded to image sharing
| service is for-profit nature of the usage.
| pojzon wrote:
| After checking the site I can tell it has quite a few
| tracking cookies enabled - so for sure it is profitting
| from the illegal content.
|
| Ps. This also doesnt cover copyright claims.
| yosito wrote:
| No, this has nothing to do with profit at all.
| furyg3 wrote:
| No. Even nonprofits (see Wikipedia) have to follow strict
| rules about licensing images or face legal consequences.
| They also do a good job of policing this on-upload,
| something that a site like Wikifeed does not.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| Exactly, this is what I'm talking about! To be clear, I'm
| not saying the case in question is fine. If you condemn
| usage of your image in porn magazines, you should condemn
| it in other situations as well, as long as the for-profit
| nature of the usage is _not_ the only thing that bothers
| you.
| FredPret wrote:
| I don't know if that's illegal or not but it really
| should be
| fxtentacle wrote:
| The law is quite clear on this. You're granting Instagram a
| license to display the image, so they are allowed to do that.
| Other websites aren't, unless you grant them a license, too.
|
| So the foot fetish website is infringing copyright. And the
| author of the image can sue them for damages.
|
| They can also ask ISPs to blacklist the page if they don't
| comply.
|
| Kind of all the stuff that the MPAA does when they find a
| movie rip on someone's server, the photographer could do
| here, too.
| boudin wrote:
| What you say is right, but is about copyright, not consent.
| No social media collect the consent of people in the actual
| pictures when the person in the picture is not the one who
| is posting it.
| thendrill wrote:
| 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?
| Veen wrote:
| 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).
| EveYoung wrote:
| 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.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| 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.
| thendrill wrote:
| 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?
| EveYoung wrote:
| 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.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| 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.
| detaro wrote:
| That does not automatically grant you the right to repost
| them elsewhere in a different context.
| yosito wrote:
| Not at all. I'm not commenting on the fetish. I'm commenting
| on the lack of consent.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| > TIL there's a wiki website for foot fetishists.
|
| Foot fetishists are SO common. If you don't count the boob &
| ass normies, foot fetishists are a clear number one in the
| fetish sector.
|
| I don't know if they're that common or they're just easy to
| cater to (taking a few pics of feet isn't a huge issue for
| anyone who makes a living on their looks).
| adventured wrote:
| Is it ok to publish photos of celebrities, athletes or
| politicians (public persons broadly) in newspapers, news
| stories online, or in magazines, or on forums, or on Wikipedia?
| If so, then it's morally ok to upload these feet photos. What
| about by outlets that some people don't regard as being
| legitimate news, like MSNBC or Fox? Those sources often seem
| like fetish outlets, they sell crack to partisans who mentally
| masturbate all day long to outrage porn headlines.
|
| How about ESPN and athletes? They sell fetish obsession 24/7 to
| sports addicts of every possible variety. Fetishists obsessed
| with how tennis players grunt. You name it.
|
| WikiFeet apparently has an IMDB rule in terms of who may be
| published, which seems within the realm of being reasonable as
| a cut-off.
|
| And I strongly suspect that if the owner of eg Instagram photos
| that are being published on WikiFeet wanted them taken down for
| copyright reasons, WikiFeet would certainly comply with a
| simple email.
| fergie wrote:
| In my younger days I would probably have agreed with you OP.
|
| Now that I am older, I have come to appreciate the time,
| ambition, energy and reward that goes into being a public
| figure. I am also a bit wiser to the whole game of getting
| attention whilst pretending that you are not looking for it.
|
| I feel like the best way to deal with this situation is just to
| accept that its all OK. Its OK to be an young, rich, attractive
| white woman. Its OK to publish pics of yourself on instagram.
| Its OK to be into feet. Its ok to like and share public content
| that you find online. The message of the article is that its a
| bit weird, but its OK. Lets not be too quick to shame and
| judge.
|
| (The comments about Jennifer Aniston were interesting too-
| there is clearly a subtext here about the reach and power of
| women on these platforms, and again- this is all OK!)
| yosito wrote:
| I'm not talking about public figures.
|
| > I feel like the best way to deal with this situation is
| just to accept that its all OK.
|
| It's not _all_ ok. It 's ok to be into feet. It's ok to be
| any age, race, class. It's ok to publish anything you want
| about _yourself_ in any way you choose. I 'm not judging or
| shaming any of those things.
|
| What's NOT ok is using/sharing someone's photos without their
| consent. In legal terms, it's likely a violation of copyright
| laws. In terms of morality/decency, it's a violation of
| respect for another person's boundaries.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This was awesome. I laughed so hard. Made my day better.
| severak_cz wrote:
| For every weird niche hobby there is a guy who is creating
| literal database of something with almost scientific precision.
|
| Mix it with rule 34 and you got things like WikiFeet or some
| Czech site which is literal database of nude scenes in our whole
| cinema history (sorted by movies, actresses and director
| including screencaps of course).
| exikyut wrote:
| Case in point being e621 (https://e621.net/posts, or
| https://e926.net/posts to auto-filter NSFW)
|
| The thing that makes me double-take is the consistency, breadth
| and depth, and liveness of the tag system.
|
| Like, I want this level of OCD, meets del.icio.us, meets HN.
| wincy wrote:
| Oh wow that's not what I expected, for anyone wondering how
| NSFW this is, it's full of extremely explicit furry porn.
| exikyut wrote:
| My sincere apologies. I find the art itself to be much of a
| blur, and the tag system the main attraction (if only I
| could extract just the tagging system...), and I kinda
| forgot that, err, e621 is very much a size-XL eyeful
| compared to e926...
| ddoubleU wrote:
| Thanks, sending it to all my male friends now without even
| looking
| exikyut wrote:
| Possibly a bad idea. Potential outcome:
|
| Them, knowing more than you might assume: " _OwO what 's
| this?_"
|
| You: possibly now a furry due to inversion of plausible
| deniability
| ddoubleU wrote:
| They don't know what being a furry is, so they can't
| throw it back at me _taps head_ (that I hope at last).
|
| On a more serious note, within the circle of my friends
| this falls into "prank link" category - rickrolling etc.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| There's more than just e621! There's a whole set of -boorus
| that's work exactly like this!
|
| Rule34.xxx, gelbooru, danbooru. Truly a wonderful world we
| live in!
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Another one I love is philosopher.life, aka "h0p3's wiki" where
| this guy h0p3 shares his personal thoughts philosophies and
| personal online interactions. It's really charming and
| interesting and a real throwback to the "old Web" of personal
| websites.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| Wow that website (https://philosopher.life) has an incredibly
| soothing UI. I don't know if it's the "old web" part of it
| that's doing it for me or what, but I really like the theme.
| h0p3 wrote:
| he( ^o^)no\(^_^ )
| omedusyo wrote:
| btw, this is made with (in?) TiddlyWiki
| (https://tiddlywiki.com/)
| h0p3 wrote:
| Yes, it is. TW is amazing! Even a skiddie like me can
| make it work. It's extremely portable, flexible, and
| enduring. I owe a great deal to the fantastic Tiddlywiki
| community.
| h0p3 wrote:
| Well, hello there! That's extremely high praise. Thank you.
| You're making your way into the Hypertext too. =)
|
| It's a pleasure to speak with you. Conversation is a
| sacrament (and an art well beyond me). I hope to capture what
| I love about the web: people who make life worth living.
|
| For those who haven't already seen them (these people are
| rockstars), I'm also a huge fan of my beloved:
| https://wiki.waifu.haus/, https://sphygm.us/, and
| https://kickscondor.com/ - these treasures inspire me quite a
| bit.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Thanks so much - it would be a privilege and an honour to
| be included in your wiki :)
|
| Kickscondor was actually the person who first led me to
| your site - I enjoy their content too. I'll check out these
| other two as well, thank you!
|
| Gwern's also a really interesting and passionate Internet
| Person, though I know you've had some interactions with him
| so I'm just mentioning him for the benefit of others. I've
| run into a couple of other treasures in my time but I'm not
| consistent enough at maintaining a PKM to have them to hand
| sadly. Maybe someday I'll start a public personal wiki of
| my own!
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Autism is a gift of the gods to the human race.
| ewwhite wrote:
| I mean, mrskin.com
| Bluestein wrote:
| "Hollywood's Hottest Buttholes", an actual headline from that
| site (!)
| spiralx wrote:
| I was expected it to be like Wikifeet but for foreskins lol.
| stephvd wrote:
| For the sake of curiosity, what does that link contain?
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| A catalog of movies/actresses where they appear nude/in
| sexy outfits. Mostly softcore information/db on mainstream
| movies
| kioleanu wrote:
| Exactly what the OP described
| kergonath wrote:
| Note to self: never get a page on IMDB. Not that there is any
| risk...
| drakonka wrote:
| I ended up with a page on IMDB for participating in an episode
| of a tiny web streaming tech show years ago, and apparently you
| can't just get them removed. It isn't a high bar of
| fame/publicity to get stuck in there, unfortunately.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's probably not down to you; IMDB is pretty much a wiki I
| believe.
|
| But, not becoming famous is something to strive for. or. not
| becoming famous is? Either / or.
| joelbluminator wrote:
| Was WikiFeet built with Elixir?
| janpot wrote:
| It's so refreshing how this article doesn't try to impose an
| opinion on me. It really engages me to think about the matter and
| form my own.
| [deleted]
| adventured wrote:
| The article reads like something that I might have seen online
| 15-20 years ago, before everyone went batshit crazy. It's nice.
| She covers it very matter-of-fact without trying to force the
| reader to view it or react to it in a particular way. It's the
| hallmark of someone with a noble intellect in this day and age.
| Bluestein wrote:
| This, and Netscape frontpaging :)
|
| ... it's like the 90's are staging a comeback, wholesomeness
| and all ...
| toyg wrote:
| WikiFeet itself feels very "old internet": a basic site about
| a very narrow niche, user-powered, with no pretensions and no
| hope of making any money.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Reminds me of the old "Hot or Not" sites.
|
| Remember RateMyVomit and RateMyPoo? Real class acts.
| Brought to you by the fine people that ran rotten.com.
|
| Kids, these days...they don't know what they're missing...
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Yeah, niche fetish content is probably the easiest adult
| content to monetize. His free labor is refreshing, but not
| too surprising given the rest of his personality on display
| here.
| bartvk wrote:
| It's magnificent in that way, the man in question really is
| honest and open about it. I especially found the last answer
| pretty funny: "I had the nurse coming in at night showing me
| her feet. I actually took her out to dinner a couple times. I
| can just get girls out of their shoes, it's a thing I can do."
| voldacar wrote:
| > I can just get girls out of their shoes, it's a thing I can
| do.
|
| absolutely incredible line
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The article's title makes it seem like the person continues to
| upload her feet without her permission. I feel like that's
| clickbait-y, but otherwise it's impartial.
|
| It otherwise could have been titled "An interview with the man
| who uploads my feet", but I guess that one doesn't invoke as
| much outrage.
| ycombinete wrote:
| Most often article headlines are chosen by editors, not the
| authors.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, and I don't blame whoever chooses the title. It's a
| cutthroat game for writers now and I'm sure many are having
| to do things they don't want to to make ends meet and get
| as many clicks as possible. Nevertheless, I think it's
| important for everyone to maintain alertness about how
| their feelings are being evoked and to what end.
| tootie wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that's just journalistic technique. You won't
| get answers out of someone by being combative. What's unusual
| is that she just posted a transcript of the conversation and
| didn't really turn it into a narrative piece.
|
| It may seem like she's being a good sport and isn't bothered by
| this at all, but I don't think you can draw that conclusion.
| anthony_romeo wrote:
| I smell a Pulitzer here
| rincebrain wrote:
| There's also a pretty amusing epilogue/footnote to the article
| from the author, which I'll quote verbatim here:
|
| "At the end of our interview he asked me to print out the piece,
| step in paint, step on the story, and mail it to him with my foot
| autograph. I might."
|
| - https://twitter.com/LEBassett/status/1379878161589153793
| ColeyG wrote:
| footnote
| salex89 wrote:
| Haha, not what I expected to find on HN this morning, but I'm
| glad I did.
|
| Some human quirks are fun. Maybe because this guy doesn't look
| intimidating.
| ondrek wrote:
| Exactly! Quite a nice refreshment and storytelling between
| startups, politics and tech.
| kthartic wrote:
| Where did you see a photo of this guy? I can't seem to see it
| in the article
| salex89 wrote:
| I meant "seem" or "feel". Lost in translation.
| jmmcd wrote:
| Off-topic, but the man in the interview reminds me of this lovely
| song about a foot fetish
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XDCoVoeMKs
| [deleted]
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Enjoyable read. I like how the Q&A playfully abstracts that
| Robert likes beating his meat to feet.
|
| Sometimes you don't _need_ or _want_ to know the low level
| details of your implementation :-)
| kleiba wrote:
| You know how every now and then someone comments "That's it, HN
| has officially become Reddit" or something along those lines?
| Well, I think this would be a good opportunity...
|
| (Usually, those comments get downvoted, so please feel free.)
| Karsteski wrote:
| Why do you think they are downvoted? To me, it comes across as
| pretentious grandstanding, but I also understand the sentiment.
| I've not been using hacker news for very long, so I'm not
| familiar with what was posted 5+ years ago
| Wohlf wrote:
| I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, but personally I find
| "exploring weird internet subcultures" within the spirit of
| hacking, if not the letter of the law. I'd much rather see this
| than a lot of the start-up related stuff posted here.
| taspeotis wrote:
| For what it's worth the last guideline "addresses" this [1].
| Seems to be a bit of a meme 'round these parts.
|
| I feel this submission is too quirky and long-form for the
| front page of Reddit. On occasion HN does a good job surfacing
| these sorts of articles.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| thendrill wrote:
| Nahh nahh. You are absolutely right. I love it when the techno
| "elite" throws out their principles the moment something feels
| icky but has no set social norms only parallels that are to
| icky to think about in an objective way.
|
| So you are absolutely correct. Hn is just reddit suddenly
| Nursie wrote:
| Who has principles that state it's ok to take someone else's
| personal pics from social media and post them as effectively
| porn?
| thendrill wrote:
| So it is ok for bloggers, journalists, fan sites, meme
| sites, meme factories etc. To take someone's publicly
| posted pic and use it for amusement or personal gain?
|
| But it is not ok for a group of collectors to organize
| collections on internet out of crops of publicy posted
| photos, for something completely legal?
| everly wrote:
| Fascinating - and surprisingly positive outcome/interaction -
| they were both great sports, particularly the writer.
|
| Foot people always leave me feeling creeped out when I encounter
| them online and I think it is at least partly because it seems
| like many of them enjoy making others squirm about their affinity
| for feet almost as much as they enjoy the feet themselves.
| timdaub wrote:
| Lol, that reminded me of "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman".
| orthoxerox wrote:
| It reminded me of "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man" by Isaac Asimov.
| [deleted]
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| > So why not just look at feet on Instagram, or screenshot them
| for yourself? What do you get out of posting them to another
| website?
|
| This question has always been weird to me, but apparently there
| are people who don't experience "this thing is good, i wish to
| contribute" or "this has brought me joy, i wish to give something
| back". I mean, thankfully there are still enough others that we
| can have Wikipedia, where you also don't get anything in return.
| Not even "clout". Sometimes someone will send you a thank you and
| that'll make your day. Open Source is another obvious one, but it
| extends to the real world, too. Some people will plant flowers in
| public places or do yarnbombing or pick up trash in the
| neighborhood or whatever. Why do it? What do you get out of it? I
| mean, I don't want to be harsh saying "what a dumb question", but
| it just kind of makes me uncomfortable how it challenges
| something that should be celebrated.
|
| The next question about it being invasive is good and valid, but
| this one on its own just sounds like "why not content yourself
| with passively consuming". I'm glad he called himself "generous"
| because it's true.
| mattmanser wrote:
| It's not something they created.
|
| You're not really contributing, it's more akin to showing off
| your stamp collection, but with sexual undertones that make
| many feel uncomfortable.
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| Wikipedia contributions are also not something you "created".
| In fact, you're discouraged from adding information you have
| not taken from somewhere else. Archival, compilation,
| curation, categorization, making information legible and
| accessible and persistent is still work. See also
| archive.org. Whether the specific topic makes some people
| uncomfortable is beside the point. The question was "why do
| you try to help a website you like prosper without anything
| in return". The reward is a more complete foot database and
| the good feeling of having helped.
| watwut wrote:
| Wikipedia contributions are very much created. You are not
| supposed to copy paste from elsewhere. You are writing own
| text.
| gruez wrote:
| I think he's referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
|
| You can't copy paste, but you're also not supposed to
| come up with stuff yourself.
| watwut wrote:
| But taking existing facts and rearranging them into new
| text is considered "creating" in basically any context.
| Books and articles, especially those written for general
| public, are often collections of already existing facts.
| And it counts as creating.
| exikyut wrote:
| Yarnbombing is nice, TIL:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=yarnbombing
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| it was a trend in my town for a hot minute -- seeing sidewalk
| trees with cute sweaters was fun, but after the first rain
| they became gross and the artists never took them down. they
| stayed up for weeks, some of the more hidden ones for much
| longer.
|
| if you do this, please return to recover your work before the
| weather gets it. (maybe you can deploy it again in a new
| spot!)
| teachingassist wrote:
| > "this has brought me joy, i wish to give something back"
|
| The scenario includes bringing potential harm to an identified
| person.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| what harm?
| eCa wrote:
| Photos of parts of her body posted on a fetish web site
| could, potentially, lead to professional and relationship
| issues, for a starter.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Presumably the only people who would say "whoa I saw your
| feet on a foot fetish site" are people who spend
| substantial time perusing foot fetish sites.
| jolmg wrote:
| Or people that would google you and find the site among
| the results.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Well presumably the photos aren't being posted with your
| real name unless you're a celebrity or something.
| jolmg wrote:
| > To be clear, I am not a celebrity. I have decent
| Twitter following
|
| > my own wikiFeet profile, which included my full name,
| birthday, and photos of me and my exposed feet
|
| "Presumably"... Presumably, for better or for worse, lots
| of people use their real names online, not just
| celebrities, and there's no reason to presume that people
| that share the images won't also share the name of the
| person.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| "your feet are hot, I saw them on wikifeet"
|
| "your feet are hot, I saw them on Instagram"
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| That's debatable and misses the gist of the interviewer's
| question. It was literally "what do you get from
| contributing".
| finexplained wrote:
| > there are people who don't experience "this thing is good, i
| wish to contribute" or "this has brought me joy, i wish to give
| something back"
|
| I have literally never experienced this feeling. I've thought
| about why I haven't a lot, and for me I think it's because I
| have no inherent sense of "community".
| Tarsul wrote:
| Imagine you are reading wikipedia every day for years and
| really like its content and it gives a lot to you and then
| suddenly you see grave mistakes on some of the sites (like
| when I saw that wikipedia had the wrong year for nicolas
| cage's oscar win!), wouldn't you go "out of your way" to fix
| these mistakes? I mean wouldn't it annoy the living hell out
| of you to know that this mistake lives on while you go on
| consuming the rest of wikipedia? Nonetheless, ADDING stuff is
| a level higher but editing mistakes might be the first
| stepping stone...
| finexplained wrote:
| I have actually spent considerable amounts of time reading
| math related wikipedia articles in graduate school, though
| those tend to be well written and researched. More often
| you find ways that things could be explained more clearly.
|
| No, the thought wouldn't even occur to me. I'd just
| recognize the mistake and move on to what I was doing at
| the time.
| Nursie wrote:
| > wouldn't you go "out of your way" to fix these mistakes?
|
| On wikipedia? As someone who has not spent years building
| up a reputation? No, it would just be reverted in ten
| seconds flat by whoever had nominated themselves as
| guardian of the truth about Nick Cage.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| That's not at all been my experience. I'm not a regular
| contributor, but I correct errors when I come, add
| sources, and sometimes remove unsourced claims.
|
| The most that's ever happened is that I've had my edits
| reverted until I added citations. Since then I include
| them by default and haven't had it happen in years.
| the_af wrote:
| That's not true.
|
| I don't have any reputation on Wikipedia but I have made
| dozens of small corrections to it, and they seldom get
| reverted (though they are sometimes improved upon, which
| I'm fine with).
|
| Reputation on Wikipedia helps with edit wars and
| flamewars, on contested issues. But just fixing a
| spelling error or a link is not usually a contested
| issue.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I think that's a common experience for people in the modern
| era, people are very atomised especially in cities and in
| white collar jobs where there's not much common toil to bond
| people together.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| There is link-tracking on this article, and that's fine --
| whatever. What blows my mind is how my browser (latest firefox)
| is seemingly enabling it. When you hover over the first link, it
| clearly shows in the bottom left corner that it will link to
| 'wikifeet.com', but if you actually click the link, my adblocker
| stops me from being redirected to 'redirectingat.com'.
|
| Why does my browser lie to me like this?
|
| edit: inspect element clearly shows <a
| href="https://www.wikifeet.com/Laura_Bassett"> my wikiFeet
| page</a>
|
| What's going on here? Is it replacing the links on mousedown?
| polote wrote:
| > Is it replacing the links on mousedown?
|
| Yes, mousedown replace the href attribute, and then a few
| milliseconds after put the original link back. To debug that
| king of thing, you just put a break point on attribute
| modification of the link attributes, and you will see there is
| js triggered
| detaro wrote:
| The alternative would be showing "I can't tell you what happens
| if you click here". An interesting question if that's better or
| not.
|
| > _What 's going on here? Is it replacing the links on
| mousedown?_
|
| Yes. Observe what happens to the URL shown when you right-click
| the link.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| Another wiki for a more mainstream fetish:
| https://boobpedia.com/boobs/Main_Page (NSFW)
|
| Interestingly, while it's been around for years, the word "boob"
| means it's basically invisible to Google.
| Loughla wrote:
| The amount of time people spend on this sort of thing, just
| like the feet wiki in the article, is just fascinating. I'm all
| for having odd hobbies, but this is just next level.
| o_p wrote:
| How come theres no Smell Transfer Protocol yet
| throwaway889900 wrote:
| Sadly there is no RGB of scents.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Maybe because the STP abbreviation has already been claimed by
| a bunch of other things?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STP#Computing
|
| Anyway I'm opting out of that one, I like my internet scent-
| free. I guess there may be some people who are really into
| smelling?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Isn't this what the brapper crypto is for? /S
| thendrill wrote:
| I loved the article. More people should devote to their passions.
| Ceezy wrote:
| Gathering people informations to put them in a porn like website
| (without their consent) doesn't sound like a brilliant idea to
| me.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jdsalaro wrote:
| I went in thinking "meh, let's check" and was surprised and quite
| amused about the "wholesomeness" of what could have been a very
| strange encounter.
|
| He seemed respectful and she seemed unbothered by the whole
| ordeal. Interesting, not my cup of tea, but definitely
| interesting.
|
| Something else that caught my attention was how early he believes
| his interest for feet developed, as early as six and nine years
| of age. I wonder how this slightly amusing predilection grows and
| develops over time, as to even gain sexual connotation.
| agency wrote:
| I found his "origin story" very interesting too. One theory
| I've heard for foot fetishism, which is the most common bodily
| fetish by far I believe, is essentially a neural equivalent of
| crossed-wires: Brain areas associated with the feet and with
| genitals being next to one another. His anecdote felt like an
| environmental thing though, with him having these foot-centric
| formative experiences. Though I guess you could spin it as
| nurture or nature - the experiences causing his fetish or
| simply this being the period when he first became aware of it
| as some latent thing.
| anthony_romeo wrote:
| To be more generous, I'd suggest an evolutionary explanation.
| In the days long ago, before shoes were a thing, having
| healthy feet would be pretty highly correlated with
| survivability, and thus spreading one's genes. So perhaps
| it's simply the consequence of very discerning ancestors.
| zinclozenge wrote:
| I heard that crossed wires theory and I just don't believe
| it. For me the simplest explanation is that there's an entire
| industry built around selling sexy women's footwear (heels)
| that draws attention to the foot, so it really shouldn't be a
| surprise.
| triceratops wrote:
| I thought the appeal of heels is that they force a "sexy"
| stance. Rather than how they frame the foot itself.
| [deleted]
| hkt wrote:
| Yep, this is true: it lengths legs, changes posture etc.
| The higher the heel, generally the greater the effect.
| agency wrote:
| Yeah the whole "mapping of brain region to concept" feels
| very over-simplistic so it's hard to know what to make of
| it.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Are you saying the concept of brain mapping locations is
| overly simplistic, or that crossed wiring could cause a
| foot fetish? The brain mapping is well supported:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Your theory doesn't explain male foot fetishism at all.
|
| Personally, I believe this has much more to do with the
| taboo nature of feet (as they are usually seen as dirty),
| similarly to other fetishes (e.g. urine).
|
| Foot fetishism is by no means a modern phenomenon driven by
| advertising.
| trhway wrote:
| >taboo nature
|
| i think everything that is closed/covered becomes such a
| taboo/fetish. Feet have been in shoes (and under a long
| dress for women) most of the recent times. Give a couple
| years more of the mask regime and lips/noses would become
| taboo/fetish too :)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Why would shoes be considered sexy?
| jjk166 wrote:
| Seems more likely that a massive industry popped up around
| selling sexy footware (as opposed to say sexy satchels or
| sexy mittens) because there was a substantial demand for
| it. Perhaps the success of the industry has reinforced and
| perpetuated the belief that feet are sexy, but it doesn't
| make sense that some industrialist woke up one day and said
| "I'll make an extremely impractical shoe and sell millions
| by convincing the world it turns people on"
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Side note:
|
| Women's heels, in Western Europe, evolved from shoes worn
| by Persian cavalrymen; they were designed to stay in the
| stirrup. You still see something similar in "cowboy
| boots".
|
| Women appropriated the shoes as a symbol of empowerment
| at a time when other "butch" fashions were being borrowed
| (e.g., epaulets). That they made intimidated clomping
| noises as you walked around was half the appeal.
|
| Then the shoes became more and more "feminine",
| culminating in the "stiletto", which takes its name from
| a dagger used to finish off armored soldiers.
|
| So they've always been symbols of violence.
|
| Which makes all the more ironic that their wearers
| experience feet aches and leg problems, and view them as
| tools of male oppression. Maybe you should just stop
| clomping around in the things. They ruin good marble
| floors, make loud noises, and pain me just to look at.
| The whole point is for riding a horse. If you're off a
| horse, then it's like walking around in ski boots.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| I've been attracted to pregnant women since I was 3. Not gonna
| discuss my childhood much cause I do consider it private but it
| wasn't a sexual attraction then, but it was definitely a "I
| can't look away because I like looking at it" thing.
| vvvvgood633 wrote:
| It's pretty strange, I can remember liking feet in preschool
| and kindergarten. I have no idea why, though.
|
| Lately it's gotten to be more of an "in theory" than "in
| practice" thing for me as I've come to learn about fungus and
| micro biome, etc.
|
| Eg https://au.news.yahoo.com/man-contracts-lung-infection-
| smell...
| iSnow wrote:
| I'm not a doc but I would argue that the guy must have had
| severe fungal infection of his feet to get to a point where
| sniffing his socks poses a health hazard. Maybe even immuno-
| compromised. I doubt you can contract this from healthy feet
| even if you sniff them daily :)
| atat7024 wrote:
| People regularly underestimate the damage of breathing in
| mold and fungus spores.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I have no idea why, though._
|
| You mean, besides them being awesome?
| o_____________o wrote:
| > I have no idea why, though.
|
| Check out the "The Penfield homunculus" and note that in the
| brain's sensory map, where we process foot sensations is very
| close to genitalia.
| coldtea wrote:
| Sure, but how is this relevant though?
|
| It's other people's feet people like, not their own (and so
| don't themselves feel those sensations when they touch them
| or whatever).
| iSnow wrote:
| Looking at the headline I tensed up feeling how intrusive and
| even abusive this could feel for her. Was happy to find a good-
| natured exchange between the two and the guy didn't come over as
| creepy at all, even though his hobby probably will feel like
| stalking to other women.
|
| I guess it's because feet just toe the line between ordinary
| photos - there are huge celeb sites - and more intimate ones you
| wouldn't want to see posted online.
| jonathanESSAY wrote:
| SOLVED!! Tyler, a single taxpayer, generates business income of
| $3,000 in 2016. In 2017, he generates an NOL of $2,000. In 2018,
| he incurs another NOL of $5,000
| https://essaywritingg.us/blog/uncategorized/51918/
| Hallmane wrote:
| There's something peaceful about people who know they're 'weird'
| compared to the masses, but really don't care. Finding confidence
| in who (and what) I am is really my goal in life. Saying that,
| I'm not even that 'weird', I just always have thought about me
| from the perspective of others.
| jonathanESSAY wrote:
| https://essaywritingg.us/blog/uncategorized/51918/ Tyler, a
| single taxpayer, generates business income of $3,000 in 2016. In
| 2017, he generates an NOL of $2,000. In 2018, he incurs another
| NOL of $5,000. In 2019, he generates a modest business income of
| $6,000 and then in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic results in an NOL
| of $13,000. Assume that in all years, Tyler adopts the NOL
| treatment that results in the earliest and greatest refund.
| Provide a chronological analysis of Tyler's treatment of NOLs
| through 2020.
| throw14082020 wrote:
| > There isn't much of a community on wikiFeet. It's not like
| people can heart the photos or whatever.
|
| Now I can see an important problem to solve. Innovation!
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Feetbook.com? Instafoot?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It would be hilarious if Instagram changed their site consent
| form to simply say that 'your feet may end up on a foot fetish
| website.'
|
| How many users would continue to use Instagram?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-08 23:02 UTC)