Philosophical Vegan Forum

Done

EquALLity wrote: Ok, I agree with most of this. But you don't need to be friends with somebody to argue with them, obviously.

You kind of do, to get much out of it. Being friends means more exposure, and it also means a rapport which helps you get past all of the would be personal attacks and ego and reach for something like real understanding.

EquALLity wrote: Yes, that makes sense. Or I guess, who you can teach about things also (especially important ones, like veganism). !

Focus more on what you can learn, rather than what you can teach, when you're making friends. The reason, of course, being that you have a limited number of slots there, and you really don't want to get into the habit of limiting your teaching to that small number.

With friends, you can make an active choice to learn, that's all up to you, but they have to also make that choice to learn, and that's not always going to happen. In terms of payback on effort for teaching, you'll often have better luck reaching out to a large number of strangers, and then reaching the small percentage who are ready to learn at that time. It's an odds game, and you need large numbers to have a larger effect.

RedAppleGP wrote:I creeped the guys facebook, and no chick between the ages of 13-25 would want to go out with this guy... if that's his real photo.

He doesn't look very old, mid to late 30's? He's fairly clean cut, he shouldn't have that much trouble finding a date his age (unless that's just a very flattering photo). It's probably an issue of emotional maturity.

That said, could you please take down the photo? He may be a bit of a creeper hitting on teenagers, but it's still not nice to post other people's pictures online without their permission. Some day he may grow up, and the internet is forever.

brimstoneSalad wrote: You kind of do, to get much out of it. Being friends means more exposure, and it also means a rapport which helps you get past all of the would be personal attacks and ego and reach for something like real understanding.

After a single conflict, I would be motivated to get exposure anywhere.
Like for instance, I watched Meet Your Meat and Earthlings after watching a YouTube video about them. I didn't need to constantly talk with veg*ns.

As for there being a rapport, that's true. But I'm able to argue with someone and not make personal attacks.
Granted, the other side isn't, always.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Focus more on what you can learn, rather than what you can teach, when you're making friends. The reason, of course, being that you have a limited number of slots there, and you really don't want to get into the habit of limiting your teaching to that small number.

I also wouldn't want to limit my learning.
As long as I'm exposed to something, I'll almost definitely look into it if it challenges my beliefs.

That's why I love the Internet, because it's such an awesome place for having your beliefs challenged and growing.

brmmstoneSalad wrote: That said, could you please take down the photo? He may be a bit of a creeper hitting on teenagers, but it's still not nice to post other people's pictures online without their permission. Some day he may grow up, and the internet is forever.

The images are already online publicly, though. What difference would reposting an already willingly made public picture make?

Thanks apple,

EquALLity wrote:The images are already online publicly, though. What difference would reposting an already willingly made public picture make?

Well, there's the legal one; e.g. that picture is owned by the subject, and we don't have permission to copy it. And then there's the moral one; he has control of his content where he posts it, and here he does not have control over it. Should he choose to delete it, that's his prerogative. This could hurt him.

His being a pervy creep doesn't change any of that.
Even weird and nasty people have feelings.

Jebus just brought this up in another thread, kind of. While we may not like the guy, we do have to try to see it as objectively as possible and not make excuses based on our biases for doing something that would otherwise be pretty un-cool.

What if somebody violated our privacy because they didn't like us for being atheists or vegans?

That's the kind of thing religious fundamentalists do when they don't like something. I don't feel comfortable taking a page out of their book.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Well, there's the legal one; e.g. that picture is owned by the subject, and we don't have permission to copy it.

But, when you post it on social media publicly, doesn't that change? There is even a repost option on Facebook.

brimestoneSalad wrote:And then there's the moral one; he has control of his content where he posts it, and here he does not have control over it. Should he choose to delete it, that's his prerogative.

By this logic, we couldn't repost anything online without asking permission from the creator.

brimstoneSalad wrote:His being a pervy creep doesn't change any of that.
Even weird and nasty people have feelings.

Yup, I know.
I'm not getting down on weirdoes, anyway. I'm a vegan.
I don't have a problem with weird folk as long as they're not bad for other reasons.
Oh, I'm probably starting some semantic bullsh*t, eh?
I'll stop now. I know what you mean.

brimstoneSalad wrote: I don't feel comfortable taking a page out of their book.

Well, things they do aren't automatically bad.
Oh, I said I'd stop being picky. Whoops.

Anyway, I just don't think it's a violation of privacy. It's not like he set the photo to "only me" or something else that makes photos only available to be seen by a select group.

EquALLity wrote: But, when you post it on social media publicly, doesn't that change?

No.

EquALLity wrote: By this logic, we couldn't repost anything online without asking permission from the creator.

Correct. The vast majority of the internet is infringing on copyright in a big way. Although
"moral rights" are what I'm more concerned about here.

Share/automatic repost features work a little differently, and draw from the original source, or are permitted based on EULA -- that's only within a specific network, or when people provide those options intentionally for their own content. I'd have to read the find print and see how the system is designed to explain why those are permitted in each respective case.

There is something called fair use, but most people don't understand what that means, and it wouldn't apply to something like this. This also falls under a number of privacy laws, and possibly libel.

When you're talking about a private person (not a celebrity, they aren't protected by the laws), it's important not to personally identify them.

Correct. The vast majority of the internet is infringing on copyright in a big way.

I looked this stuff up online, and apparently, it's true. Huh.

Although "moral rights" are what I'm more concerned about here.

Ah. Yes, I get what you're saying.

When you're talking about a private person (not a celebrity, they aren't protected by the laws), it's important not to personally identify them.

What about images of memes for instance? Is this just for people?

There is something called fair use, but most people don't understand what that means, and it wouldn't apply to something like this.

Fair use? That's why YouTubers like TJ can review news clips and such using footage from the programs, right? I think he mentioned this in a video about SOPA/PIPA.

EquALLity wrote: What about images of memes for instance? Is this just for people?

It's only for humans.

Also, in practice, it's kind of only for humans in first world countries. You can go to Africa and take pictures of people and put them wherever you want without permission for the most part. Mostly because they'd never find out and they don't have the ability to sue you.

A large part of law is what turns out to be true, and not necessarily what's true in an ideal world. People violate copyright and personal privacy rights all of the time, even large companies, when they know it's almost impossible to be caught at it.

Without a photo release, or the rights to the work where the original owner obtained a photo release, it's illegal to publish pictures of other people (unless you blur their faces).

EquALLity wrote: Fair use? That's why YouTubers like TJ can review news clips and such using footage from the programs, right?

Correct. Fair use means you can use a little bit of something to review it or criticize it, when it would be exceedingly difficult to criticize or review that thing without using any pieces of it.

This only protects the minimum usage necessary to get the point across.
You can't post so much of something that people wouldn't have any need to see the original. You can't post an entire movie, and then review it.
You can't post enough of something to be economically damaging to the original owner.
And it doesn't cover violations of privacy like this, which aren't popular subjects (this guy isn't exactly newsworthy).
If you were very careful not to say anything inaccurate, you could probably link to him to damage his character, but I wouldn't recommend it.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2040840_sue-som ... libel.html

Now, if this guy made himself a major public figure in some way, like TJ probably is, then you could do whatever you want.
You lose your protections when you become a public figure (although that line itself is grey).

It may become trickier with aliases. Internet privacy law is a still evolving beast.

For example, theveganatheist is somewhat of a public figure, but his real name is not public. Does that give him as a person protection, while his alias loses protection? You might be able to argue that (I'd have to dig into case law).
However, he has made his profile image public in association with his alias, so somebody could take that profile image and use it to make a satirical cartoon, and he wouldn't be able to do anything about that -- does that pierce the veil of anonymity to his personal identity enough to open the flood gates? Again, I don't know.

If he had not made that image public and somebody did that, he might have protections against that.

Personally, I would recommend to NEVER publicly link your online account to your real identity in any way, just to be extra safe. If the links are minimal and you're mostly anonymous, then you're probably OK. Or, of course, if you're just on a forum and you're not a real public figure.

Ah, I see.