And yet nobody has provided a rational explanation. I don’t particularly care if my understanding is necessary because I’m not trying to fight for this one way or the other. I’m just curious why people are having an issue with it to begin with.
I’ll go ahead and ask, then, since my picture is there. I’m not trying to fight with anybody, and it’s no skin off my back if this isn’t implemented. I genuinely don’t understand the privacy argument. Is it a vague feeling of discomfort about it (which is absolutely your right to have – I don’t have any issue with that)? Or is there something specific which you fear would happen as a result of implementing this idea which does not and/or could not happen simply by the picture(s) being up on Arnold’s site? Or a third option I haven’t thought of?
And I’m directing that at all of the objectors, not just needscoffee. Maybe there’s something I should be worried about that I’m not understanding right now.
As I said in my first post. My objection is that it is a clear change in the stated use of the picture and the conditions under which it was provided. Is that not clear?
It was not provided to become an avatar to my every post.
I understand that it wasn’t the stated use. That isn’t my question. My question is, what is your objection to this potential new use?
ETA: Phrase another way, let’s say that before you had sent in your picture, you were told that it would go up on Arnold’s site AND that it would show up as an avatar next to your posts for SDMB users who decided to use that functionality. Presumably, you would choose not to upload your picture under those circumstances. I’m just asking you why that is.
Well it was probably a bad idea to post the picture in the first place.
Now, thanks to my complaining about the new proposed use of the picture those assholes in The Snackpit have linked to my picture, along with bucketybuck, needscoffee, and **Dung Beetle **'s because we dared to complain.
Is that reason enough? My picture is coming OFF Arnolds site!
I don’t really care who sees my dopey (!) picture. I feel that with photos there, it helps people realize that real people are posting, and help keeps things civil, and helps keep me from being an asshole (usually) when I disagree with someone. I just assumed it would be an out-of-the-way side note kind of thing, not an in-your-face photo every time I post anything. It just changes the flavor of the boards. Some people don’t care. Others obviously prefer more privacy. A lot of posters only submitted photos after a lot of consideration, and had mixed feelings crossing that line. If people can’t see the reasoning behind this, I can’t help them.
Just to respond to this, it is a moot point because I have asked for the picture to be removed.
I didn’t respond to Arnold’s request to upload my photo because I have learnt the hard way that anything you put on the internet becomes public property, to be possibly used and abused, whatever your reasons or expectations when posting. The trap on the SD is, I think, the warm and cosy inclusive feeling sometimes engendered by the community here. ‘Hey, we’re amongst people with a common purpose: it’s OK to share’. Sometimes, it isn’t. There are as many assholes* posting and reading here as in the ‘real world’. Once you put something on the web, it’s out of your control. For example:
proves my point.
*I’m not suggesting that anyone posting to this thread is necessarily an asshole. Although, of course, you may be.
What if the images came from a completely different site? Sort of like the badging function that is already in wierdaaron’s script. Basically just somewhere where people interested in having/seeing avatars could upload a small image and have reply’s script fetch it from there and display it on the dope
That way there would be total consent from the beginning, and we could have avatars that aren’t just images of ourselves. Sort of a way to bypass the sdmb-anti-avatar-policy which doesn’t involve anyone who doesn’t want avatars.
It’s my (limited) understanding that a plugin would take the first picture off of a person’s “profile” on Arnold’s website.
What if those people who have objections submitted a dummy picture to appear first, since you can have multiple pictures on Arnold’s site? Then a picture of a cat or “picture not available” would appear on plugins, but you’d still be contributing to Arnold’s site.
I don’t know that I’d keep it on all the time, but I think it would be a cool option.
We’re talking about the reality of how the internet works, here, not the way everything ideally works out in a legal sense. If you do not want an image potentially downloaded and used for any variety of ends, from a collage of friends to being pasted into horse porn, you shouldn’t upload it anywhere. Otherwise, there is pretty much nothing to stop people from using the image as they see fit, whether or not that’s legal. Such is the nature of digital images.
You don’t even need that–you could have a separate tab or browser window open to the site and check it every time you read a post.
I ask this question with a straight face and no snark: Do you understand how the internet works? Do you understand that pictures on it can be repurposed by anyone for anything? Do you understand that the proposed addon will not be anything that random people can see–that someone will have to specifically (a) learn about, (b) download and install, and (c) enable the addon to see anything extra next to your posts?
No, it’s very relevant. I ask the same questions of you as I just addressed to ghardester.
What if I remember your picture and think about it every time I see a post from you? Because there are users whose photos I remember where that happens. How is this any different?
It’s not becoming an avatar to your every post. There are no avatars being added to the site. It will only show up if someone chooses to display it, in the same way that they could see it by looking at the site where it’s posted–just more efficiently.
It does nothing to the flavor of the boards, because it’s not a change to the boards. It’s an addon that some users could choose to download for themselves, personally.
This is why we keep asking questions about why people are objecting: because everything you say suggests that you have a *completely mistaken idea *about what is being suggested here.
I see I have several pictures I need to print out.
That is obviously a change to the stated use of the picture and illegal under internut law.
Unlike some people, I think this is an exciting development – I originally wasn’t interested in putting a picture in the photo gallery, but if people are going to load it up next to my posts, I want it to be something that expresses who I am as a poster.
I’m thinking a nicely-cropped goatse ought to do it.
Also, this post made me laugh out loud:
Genius.
If this is implemented with an opt-in, opt-out policy, I have no problem with it, but I don’t think there will be many takers. Probably a lot of cute puppy and kitten avatars, which would be reason enough not to do it.
Opt-out would be fine if people are ok with it. I agree that opt-in would be pointless… I imagine too few people would bother to sign up.
Under no circumstances will there be avatars that aren’t people’s real photos (or at least sketches of their real faces).
This policy is disciminatory against Asshole-Americans. :mad:
I would just like to point out that if someone used it in this way, despite your opposition to the idea, then I would be opposed to it also. But this discussion was initiated to find out how posters felt about the idea, not to do something they would feel uncomfortable with.
A suggestion (you can take it or leave it): don’t hang around the snark boards.
This is true. But nowadays, many people post pictures of themselves on a public webpage somewhere. Posting a picture of yourself is not really all that risky IMHO.
This thread is hilarious.
People allowed their photos to be posted, but now they’re upset because someone might see the photos that have been posted where anyone can see them.
Only on the SDMB.
ntucker FTW!