FWIW I agree with you. It’s important for people generally to be careful who you trust with sensitive material, but whenever a woman writes an article about being a victim of revenge porn you always hear “well she shouldn’t have taken those photos, hope she learnt her lesson.” People should feel free to share what they want, it’s a fun part of a relationship.
Bad things will always happen, trust will occasionally be misplaced, but when it does the focus should always be on how to reduce the incidence of bad stuff by stopping the perpetrators of it, not reducing the incidence by pressuring women to live a more boring life.
Women have a right to be sexual. What he did was wrong. What she did was just human, but every woman has a right to express her sexuality
@Nesrie I strongly agree with this. I often find myself less likely to express it though because usually this line of attack on women comes from the left, and usually other women. So good for you for raising it.
I did note in item 3 above that when he persisted in using the picture despite knowing it was not consentually released, that’s when he clearly became a wrongdoer, morally if not legally.
@RickH
Completely agree with this. I also agree that it is a bit risky to take nekkid photos of yourself if you do not completely trust your partner. Sadly I think the victim here misplaced her trust. It sucks.
Which, to bring this full circle, is why my advice to ALL human beings is don’t allow nude pictures of yourself to come into existence. And let’s face it, 99%+ of humanity looks better with their clothes on.
I would nuance this a bit. Be with a parter you trust etc. But yeah this does happen to both genders. Although I beleive when it comes to dudes, gay men are more likely to be the victims of this kind of awfulness than straight guys.
On a personal note (not aimed at Rick or Nes), a few years ago I had an awful picture circulating of me (clothed, mugshot) which made me appear even uglier than I am IRL :) It was posted on Gamespot as part of a Sims article. The comments in that thread on my appearence were genuinely hurtful. Like, difficult to laugh off hurtful. Assuming what I went through is say 0.1% of what this poor lady is going through then my compassion for her goes very very deep.
Not only should she not have to, but she can’t even really tell us, or the world, how much trust she gives. if she said she dated 100 guys, trusted 5 of them enough to share intimate photos or videos with, she’s very likely to be called a slut or a tease and the focus won’t be on the fact she really only trusts a select few. At the same time, the women who do this more often… they’re not worse. It’s not a contest.
Whether it’s a common thing or a rare thing… she trusted the wrong men for sure, and then a bottom feeder helped them spread their revenge and for some reason thinks moderating games he likes for a couple of years and a sorry is even close to making up for what he did.
Well now you’ve done it (not you Telefrog, just replying back to this post because it’s where the story was linked). You’ve gone and made me read the whole article, and we all know what a pain it is to scroll up that many posts in Discourse!
This is gonna be a long, boring, forum post by me, because it’s a long, meandering, Medium post by Cher. I strongly encourage everyone to skip it if they’re bored of the topic, but if you’re invested in it, and what RickH, Nesrie, and the rest of us here are saying, we probably should make sure we’re on the same page about the details of what Cher’s actually saying.
Skimming Cher’s article is gonna paint a weird picture of the situation because it’s about a lot of different things.
The article sort of shifts focus a couple times. Here’s how it opens (emphasis mine):
Currently sites like Twitter, imgur, 4chan, anon-ib, and archiveofsins place the burden on the victim to have illegal content removed. This leaves criminals unpunished and empowered to continue to upload illegal pornographic material and circulate it anonymously after the victim has successfully removed it. These websites, and posters of illegal content should hold the burden of ensuring that any nudity that is posted on their website belongs to that of consenting adults.
That, and a link to a petition to call congress to “help stop the free circulation of underage and revenge pornography online”.
It sounds like the article is going to be about the issue of who’s responsible for the community and user-posted content on the internet, which is a gigantic and sprawling topic, and which actually, never mind, Cher never mentions again for the rest of the article.
So, moving on. Next paragraph:
While following my own occurrence of harassment, you know, since ousting someone for circulating revenge porn empowers the trash of the internet to circulate more revenge porn, I discovered a friend of mine’s very old nude photos on one of these websites. The problem is that she wasn’t 18 in most of the pictures. In another online support group, a woman called on us to help her remove photos she also found on one of these websites uploaded out of revenge… again… she was underage in the photos.
Until much later in the article, this is pretty much all Cher says about her own photos. It was an “occurrence of harassment” involving someone circulating revenge porn, her words. If there’s more to the story in another source, let me know, but as far as this story goes, Cher was investigating someone (not named in the article) circulating images of her that she describes as revenge porn. In the absence of any other details, I don’t think we’ve got any grounds to question that description. Which is fine, because the post is about to switch gears again; it isn’t really about how those pictures got out there in the first place.
This is also the only mention in the article of the straight-up illegal and awful nature of the underage photos of someone else. She throws that in as a detail, and maybe the focus of the piece changed as she wrote it. That would’ve been an important part of the discussion if this was about the responsibility of the hosts for community content, but again, not really the topic Cher sticks with. I point this out not to criticize her for not pursuing that topic, but just to point out I’m not trying to marginalize it either. That’s just not the point of this discussion.
From there, Cher moves on to give some background on Twitch, how it started, how bad the moderation was in 2012–2014 era, how prevalent the distribution of nude pictures of “streamers or other well-known female gamer[s]” was. This where she gives the account that @RickH was a little confused by earlier, of someone in chat discussing pictures and Cher being unable to check for herself so having the guy she was seeing at the time check and confirm they were her.
It’s clearer in the next paragraph after what Rich quoted, where she says:
The year prior, I had been involved with someone online and he was the person who originally set out to humiliate me by leaking naked photographs of me to our entire server.
She was seeing someone back in 2011-ish that “revenge porn’d” her to their server. She thought it was over, then a year later, pictures she suspected were her were circulating again and being discussed, she had her 2012 partner confirm it.
She goes on to tell us about her friends helping her report and have these removed every where they could, getting imgur albums taken down and the people sharing them banned on Twitch, and she thinks it’s behind her. She throws in a weird detail about a video that someone claimed was her, but she and her friends insisted it wasn’t.
This is the vaguest part of the article, late 2012 she says people started sending her messages about her images again (and the messages are awful), so I think she’s saying she thought it wasn’t her at first (based on the incident with the video where someone else was being falsely distributed as her), but then:
Someone finally linked me the album, and my heart was in my stomach. It had over 300,000 views. Unlike the other albums, this one wasn’t uploaded anonymously. It belonged to an imgur user named Uncleswagg, who was apparently known for hoarding and distributing nudes from women on Twitch and World of Warcraft. He had dozens of albums of nude photographs, the most complete collection in all of the Twitch community. When he received the small collection of my photographs from a source, he learned there was someone I had been involved with in the past who may have more and contacted him to get more photos for his album.
At that point it sounds like the first revenge porn photos have resurfaced, in addition to new images that Uncleswagg actively sought out by contacting a different person who she was involved with.
Two different instances of revenge porn against Cher, but at this point the article is about Uncleswagg from here out. It’s about how he stirred this up, how he actively sought out those additional photos, how he would repeatedly post them when they were taken down, and how he was priding himself on his collection of her and lots of other women.
To my surprise, it sounds like toward the end she actually reaches a sort of truce with Uncleswagg. An understanding, of sorts, if not exactly forgiveness. He agrees to stop re-posting her pictures, and she even points out that she believes him when they crop up again in a later incident and he insists it wasn’t his doing—that was August 2017. It sounds like that’s where she left things until now.
On some level she had moved past it for a while and things had died down, but it all came back up with Uncleswagg’s rise to “legit” fame in the Overwatch/Twitch world. That’s the reason for this post, now, as far as I can tell. The end of her original post:
I am absolutely tired of seeing women’s online lives be destroyed by revenge porn, and it’s something that ran absolutely rampant on Twitch because of a single individual, Uncleswagg. Uncleswagg, who has never faced any consequences for his actions that have never stopped affecting the women he harassed, and is now being rewarded for his dedication to Blizzard and Overwatch as some impeccable Twitch moderator. Please.
The single most demeaning part of his rise to becoming a moderator in competitive esports is that he didn’t even feel the need to change his username. Must be nice.
That wasn’t just a PC Gamer headline, Cher describes herself how the first set of images leaked was “revenge porn” from a past relationship, and arguably the additional pictures from a second ex later on would also qualify, though Uncleswagg specifically solicited those from the ex (sidebar: that’s weird as hell. Some ex had pictures of her he wasn’t going to share, until Uncleswagg asked?).
The rest of Uncleswagg’s “shrine”, the collection he had of other women? This article doesn’t provide any answers. It seems almost certain that there were other revenge porn leaks in the collection, but exactly how much and where they all came from would just be speculation.
That’s the end of her original post, but there are several updates from her addressing Uncleswagg’s apology and further communications after she originally posted that. For my own sanity, I’m going to break that into another post here, because of course, the topics shift again slightly.
Regardless of whether there is law against revenge porn, any photo that you take is automatically protected by copyright law. You retain the right to publish (or not) at all times, and then some more, depending on how copyright law works in your country. Unless you give e.g. Instagram royalty free rights to use it, even then e.g. Instagram would never claim ownership of your photo, only royalty free use of it.
Asking because I’m genuinely curious, what is the problem with telling anyone not to walk down dark streets at night? I’ve gotten that advice in just about every city I’ve ever lived in.
I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your hypotheticals, but this one in particular seems really out of touch with reality. Yes, you OUGHT to be able to walk whereever you like wearing whatever you like flashing around as much wealth as you like. In far too many places, however, you will get robbed or worse if you do so. Recognizing that and acting accordingly is, once again and regardless of your gender, just prudence.
I fully agree with you and that she didn’t do anything that wasn’t within her right. In a world that is good, people could trust others not to betray them. Part of trust is a gamble. A gamble that the person you are trusting is worthy of your trust.
It wasn’t her fault. She is the victim, no question. It was a risk to have taken that photo - it shouldn’t be but it is.I should be able to leave my door open at night, but I don’t. I’ll get out of bed if I have second thoughts about whether I locked it. I should be able to set my wallet on a counter at a store while I run back to get another item, but I wouldn’t.
We have the freedom to do certain things, and we should be able to do them without some shit exploiting our decision, but unfortunately things don’t always work out that way. There have always been shits and there always will. If there was anything illegal done then that person should pay the price.
I think most people try to avoid walking in dangerous places at night. The way a woman is dressed, where she was, whether it be a street, an ally a bar, or in a car with someone, these used to be part of the victim shaming scenarios against women who reported rape and assault. Like somehow it’s her fault because she chose to dress that way, or she got off the bus too late and walked home on a dark street… like all these efforts to suggest it was her behavior that needed to change and she did something wrong which only served to shame her further and shift some, and sometimes all, of the blame off the assailant onto the victim.
I know people are telling me this is different, that somehow blaming someone for going clubbing, staying out late at night, wearing a dress… all things I thought most people don’t blame the women for when they get attacked now… it feels almost the same. Like we’re expecting her to change, cover-up, stay home, be a “good girl”… like… it just feels the same. Like this is a modern version of the same issue that’s gained some ground over the years but maybe we’re seeing the problem come back again, and now there is a virtual version of it.
This argument isn’t that much different than women wearing a mini-skirt though. Women don’t have to wear those either. Or the tight tops or go clubbing… all of these are optional.
So in the updates after her original post, Cher is disappointed with Uncleswagg’s original non-apology, then after talking with him directly, he issued a public apology directly to her. She responds:
I do believe that he does feel remorse for his actions now, but I still want to ripple this through our community.
Well within her rights, in my opinion.
Whatever any man or woman gives you with your consent is private. We keep saying there’s a risk if you send nudes that they will be leaked, but that’s simply because there’s little consequence to doing so. Risk mitigation is certainly not a part of general conversation unless you’re an insurance broker, right?
This narrative needs to shift. You can’t both expect and want private pornography from your lovers and/or friends with benefits while simultaneously having an attitude that there is not only a reasonable reason to believe that they will be stolen or leaked and distributed without your permission, but that others are entitled to their access once one person leaks them. If you want the chance at those photos and videos from those you are intimate with, then don’t use your precious time to tell someone that they shouldn’t share private photos and videos with someone if they aren’t willing to risk even just one other person seeing them without their consent.
Okay, so now it’s tricky. It’s legitimately hard to parse exactly what she’s saying in these two paragraphs. Remember I said I thought it was reasonable to warn people about the risks associated with a particular behavior, and that it could be done in a way that isn’t victim blaming? But that saying to a victim after the fact “well, you really shouldn’t have…” is definitely not the right way to do it? I stand by that.
But Cher’s opening the door here to a conversation about the risks with sharing intimate photos online. So since she brought it up, I think risk mitigation should part of a general conversation, and not just limited to insurance brokers. You do it hundreds of times each day, consciously and unconsciously. You buckle your seatbelt, or you don’t. You lock your front door while you’re inside the house, or you don’t. You order the spaghetti while you’re wearing a white shirt, or you don’t. You log into your bank account from the Starbucks WiFi, or you don’t.
You’re making judgements all the time about a million little things where you’re weighing the benefits and the risks. And if you’re fortunate, or the situation is simple enough, you’re doing this with a pretty good understanding of what’s actually at risk. But in the situations I can’t foresee, I’d much rather be making an informed decision based on education of what could happen, than a bad experience with what did happen to me.
It is good and wise to tell people of all ages, men and women, of any orientation, that intimate details, images, videos, anything like that, should be shared online very carefully. Not that they shouldn’t be shared, but that it should be done with careful consideration of the risks. Online, you’re at the mercy of a million different factors. The integrity of the intended recipient. The technical security of whatever you’re using to share them. How strong your password is. How careful the recipient is with their password. Whether or not the Russians think it could swing an election. Whether or not you’re still on that Starbucks WiFi.
It is nobody’s job to tell Cher right now what she should and shouldn’t have shared. If she’s going to change her behavior going forward, it’s because she lived through some of the worst-case consequences, she doesn’t need us or anyone else to point them out.
She’s definitely telling people the same thing, “hey, I don’t need you to tell me what I should’ve done”. It’s not totally clear to me if she’s also telling people that no one should ever warn someone about those risks.
So to reiterate, as strongly as I can, nobody needs to tell Cher what she should’ve done differently.
But I believe this should be exhibit A when you’re talking to your friends, your family, or anyone you care about, and you want to explain that there are absolutely risks to this behavior.
To bring it all the way back to RickH’s post that set off a lot of responses, I’m giving Rick the benefit of a doubt that he was doing the latter, snarkily. If I’m wrong and he was directing that sentiment to Cher, then I think it was in poor taste.
I’m not exactly clear on what your second paragraph is saying, or your third paragraph to robc04.
You’re right that victim blaming has been used to shift blame away from the actual assailant in the past for things like how someone was dressed or where they were, and that is awful.
In a similar way, the people responding to Cher telling her what she should’ve done or telling her its her fault is awful. I don’t see anyone doing that in this forum.
What some of us are saying, which would apply to both scenarios, is that warning someone against the possible consequences can be done in a reasonable way that’s not victim blaming. Whether it’s warning someone not to catch the last bus in that part of town with that much jewelry on, or warning someone to be cautious with who and how they share their photos with online, it can be done and not be victim blaming.
It’s not an argument. A women should be able to wear a miniskirt without being harassed. That isn’t in question. Because there are bad people, doing so raises the risk for something bad happening to the women. It shouldn’t be that way. Just like kids shouldn’t be shot in schools. I’m not exactly sure what point you are arguing.
I think it is you guys who are missing the point. Nesrie, from my reading, isn’t saying that cautioning of potential consequences is always victim blaming.
What started it all was Rick’s proclamations that the moral is that people should never take naked photos of themselves, which is just as regressive a statement as saying women shouldn’t go out in public showing skin. It isn’t women taking naked photos of themselves that spurred the problem of revenge porn, it’s dickhead ex-partners and lowlife hackers who are the problem.
To fix it, we as a society need to stop trying to make women more prudish or feel inhibited in order to keep them safe, and instead look at educating teenage boys and young men that sharing naked photos of past or present girlfriends is an extreme invasion of privacy and (should) result in some kind of legal consequences.
If there’s a problem of crime in a city and a friend were to say “well we shouldn’t be out at night anyway” I would be throwing stones because it’s a useless sentiment. All victims of night crime wish they didn’t go out at night, all victims of revenge porn wish they didn’t take the photos, it’s just a useless thing to say unless you’re having a conversation with your child about pitfalls to avoid when they get older.
My point earlier is that it is almost certainly a violation of copyright law to publish those intimate selfies, as long as the women themselves took the photos. Revenge porn in most cases IS illegal. There should never have been any victim-blaming.
The problem is, it is a civil matter. The police won’t deal with copyright violation. And the average people simply can’t afford a lawyer to assert their rights.
In New Zealand, however, it is also a criminal offence to upload revenge porn. The problem is that the law kind of curtailed freedom of speech. In clear cut case it is used to take down revenge porn. But the law also kind of outlawed offensive speeches as well, which can be satire, or simply an assertion of freedom of speech in itself and serves no purpose whatsoever.
Once again, you and Nesrie are describing the world as it ought to be. I ought to be able to take that shortcut through the dark alley without getting mugged. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that vision. What I and others are talking about, however, is the world as it actually is. If I think about the risks before I walk down the dark alley and choose the longer lit route, I don’t have to worry about making myself into a victim.
I still think you, Nesrie, and others are fundamentally misreading Rick’s statement that started all this. He’s not making a proclamation that no one should every take nude pictures. He’s making the almost tautological statement that if you don’t take nude pictures, you don’t have to worry about people seeing them that you didn’t intend. It’s a good reminder to everyone and completely leaves the decision of whether it’s too risky to everyone to make for themselves.
And that’s a great goal to work towards (although I question how likely it is to be accomplished in real life, desirable though it may be.) In the meantime, however, be smart and think about the potential consequences before you act.
I think you may be right, she may not be saying that it’s always victim blaming. But maybe she is. It’s difficult to tell in this post early on in the discussion, and I understand why someone could read this and think that’s exactly what she’s saying:
I’ll move on from trying to interpret the intent of RickH and Nesrie’s posts to trying to interpret yours… :)
“…stop trying to make women more prudish or feel inhibited in order to keep them safe…”
I agree with that statement as written. I hope you’re not suggesting that’s what everyone here is doing. I’m not trying to be cute with the world play, but there’s a big difference between being prudish and prudent, even if the result is the same advice. We all need to be careful how we talk about this, and how we listen to others, to make sure the difference is clear.
“…and instead look at educating teenage boys and young men…”
Yes, of course to all that as things we should do as well.
So you’re granting it’s not a useless thing to say. In that case I only disagree slightly with your conclusion, on a matter of degrees. I think for people in your life you care about, this could be appropriate advice even into their 20s.
That’s kind of you, but given how long my posts were last night, there’s a good chance I still screwed something up. But unless I do need to specifically correct something I said, I think I’m done too. I am glad I actually took the time to read Cher’s entire piece, because it was complicated and deserved better than the quick skimming I gave it early on. I don’t know if trying to summarize it here helped anyone else, but it was helpful to me.
Anyway, I think at this point pretty much everyone is aware of where everyone else stands. Maybe the discussion will move on naturally at this point.
