Poll of the Day > Demi Lovato's nudes were leaked

(+) Yeah! (+)

Two things...

1. Nice

2. Why take the pictures if you dont want anyone to see them.

---

Strata2win posted...

Two things...

1. Nice

2. Why take the pictures if you dont want anyone to see them.

If you're a celebrity and you use snapchat for nudes, you are beyond stupid. Either that or you really arent trying that hard not to leak them. Also, I dont think she's exactly been shy in the past so it isnt a stretch to think she wouldnt really care

Strata2win posted...

Why take the pictures if you dont want anyone to see them.

Because you only wanted one person to see them. That's not really a foreign concept.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Because you only wanted one person to see them. That's not really a foreign concept.

Then you probably shouldnt use Snapchat...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Then you probably shouldnt use Snapchat...

For real, snapchat has been known for years to not give a fuck about their customers security

There's that victim blaming to justify themselves.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

There's that victim blaming to justify themselves.

No. Its just common sense. Just like youd tell someone to lock their doors so they dont get robbed...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

There's that victim blaming to justify themselves.

Sometimes I do like to blame stupid people for their actions. Plus, this just isnt really actually a big deal

LinkPizza posted...

No. Its just common sense. Just like youd tell someone to lock their doors so they dont get robbed...

Just because it's common sense doesn't mean they aren't a victim.

So if someone forgets to lock their door and they get robbed the people in this topic are saying they deserve to be robbed.

---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Just because it's common sense doesn't mean they aren't a victim.

So if someone forgets to lock their door and they get robbed the people in this topic are saying they deserve to be robbed.

No but I can still determine that they're stupid and feel little sympathy

OhhhJa posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Just because it's common sense doesn't mean they aren't a victim.

So if someone forgets to lock their door and they get robbed the people in this topic are saying they deserve to be robbed.

No but I can still determine that they're stupid and feel little sympathy

I agree with this. Also, I feel like you can play victim for everything... Where does it end?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I feel like you can play victim for everything... Where does it end?

Society celebrates victims. It will never end.

---

If you go against common sense and something happens to you, you can't expect people to feel bad for you. Some people will anyway, but those are the people that want America to not have borders. I'm exaggerating for effect, but this topic has gotten stupid, so I don't really care anymore.

---

Demi should have known that when she posted her nudes on her phone or Internet that there was a real possibility that they could get leaked like that. I'm not saying it's her fault or anything but should have known the chance she was taking when she posted her nudes. It's sucks that it happened. Just saying.

---

Zangulus posted...

So shut up and sit down.

These kind of posts make me laugh. Even more so on the internet as 1 someone is typing, 2 I doubt he's stood up and 3 you have no power here.

fuzzball01 posted...

Any potential emotional / mental harm is being done regardless of how many people look at it or if anyone even does. Bad argument.

Good post. It can also help build confidence though for these folk who clearly love the attention.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Because you only wanted one person to see them. That's not really a foreign concept.

Yeah that argument goes out of the window when you keep these pics on your phone and, or upload them to the internet. Putting your private pics in private places isn't a foreign concept too yet here we are.

SunWuKung420 posted...

There's that victim blaming to justify themselves.

Pointing out common sense isn't victim blaming. Do stupid things expect stupid results.

LinkPizza posted...

No. Its just common sense. Just like youd tell someone to lock their doors so they dont get robbed...

Stop victim blaming man. I mean you can clearly run through fire and expect to not get burnt right?

---

wwinterj25 posted...

fuzzball01 posted...
Any potential emotional / mental harm is being done regardless of how many people look at it or if anyone even does. Bad argument.

Good post. It can also help build confidence though for these folk who clearly love the attention.

? so... all of the emotional harm still exists even if no one sees it? how does that make any sense? the amount of emotional/mental harm is actually directly proportional to the number of people that see it... other people seeing it is the direct cause of the emotional harm.

---

Sahuagin posted...

? so... all of the emotional harm still exists even if no one sees it? how does that make any sense? the amount of emotional/mental harm is actually directly proportional to the number of people that see it... other people seeing it is the direct cause of the emotional harm.

Not really. As already said in this topic once your nudes leak you've no idea who has saw it and who hasn't. It's simply just a number anyway as if it's a legit leak you would feel bad regardless. Although you would probably get a lot of empowering comments too!

Reminds me of these folk who post on social media attention posts then they cry when they get attention because it's not the attention they wanted and they keep reading the messages.

---

Sahuagin posted...

? so... all of the emotional harm still exists even if no one sees it? how does that make any sense? the amount of emotional/mental harm is actually directly proportional to the number of people that see it... other people seeing it is the direct cause of the emotional harm.

How so? If only 100 people have seen it, how is that different than 1 billion people seeing it? I ask because the likelyhood of her knowing exactly how many people have seen her picture is near impossible. She herself doesn't know how many people have seen it. So, can you please explain how the number of people who have seen it is directly related to the amount of emotional/mental harm she is receiving? Because unless she's like Jean Grey or Professor X, I don't know how she knows how many people have seen it...
---

Let's say for example, there is a picture of you, naked, on your phone. Then you send it to someone. This person, without your knowledge, puts it in the internet. If you don't find out about this, no matter how many people see the picture, you aren't affected by something you don't know.

The other possibility it that you find out this picture is on the internet, and you can't get it removed because that's not how the internet works. No matter how many people see it, all you know is that it is there, and people can see it. Even if no one looks at it, you know it's there. It's not going to hurt you more every time someone looks at the picture, what hurts is that the picture is available for anyone to see.

---

fuzzball01 posted...

Let's say for example, there is a picture of you, naked, on your phone. Then you send it to someone. This person, without your knowledge, puts it in the internet. If you don't find out about this, no matter how many people see the picture, you aren't affected by something you don't know.

The other possibility it that you find out this picture is on the internet, and you can't get it removed because that's not how the internet works. No matter how many people see it, all you know is that it is there, and people can see it. Even if no one looks at it, you know it's there. It's not going to hurt you more every time someone looks at the picture, what hurts is that the picture is available for anyone to see.

Exactly!
---

LinkPizza posted...

If only 100 people have seen it, how is that different than 1 billion people seeing it?

are you legit asking what the difference between 100 and 1,000,000,000 is? that's like 7 orders of magnitude...

LinkPizza posted...

can you please explain how the number of people who have seen it is directly related to the amount of emotional/mental harm she is receiving?

well let's see... if zero people see it, that would be completely relieving, because the amount of embarrassment would be zero. if exactly 1 person saw it, that would almost not even be embarrassing, except in association with that one person. if 100 people saw it, similarly it would be low embarrassment relative only to that 100 people. if literally everyone in the world saw it, that would be maximally humiliating. why the hell do I need to explain this?

---

fuzzball01 posted...

The other possibility it that you find out this picture is on the internet, and you can't get it removed because that's not how the internet works. No matter how many people see it, all you know is that it is there, and people can see it. Even if no one looks at it, you know it's there. It's not going to hurt you more every time someone looks at the picture, what hurts is that the picture is available for anyone to see.

ok thank you for actually posting something reasonable.

so, you're making a distinction between an image being viewed, and an image being made available for viewing.

I don't think that works because if an image is being made available for viewing and *no one sees it*, (and you know no one saw it), then no harm is done. harm is done by the actual (or potential) viewing.

what you're saying is the mob mentality thing again. you're saying that your one view has decreased to infinitesimal importance such that it can be considered effectively no longer immoral/harmful. you're diluting your immoral act. the question is, is this justified? is it indeed no longer immoral once it has reached a sufficient level of "saturation"? ("enough other people are doing this that it no longer matters if I do it too"?)

---

Who is Demi Lovato?

---

Sahuagin posted...

are you legit asking what the difference between 100 and 1,000,000,000 is? that's like 7 orders of magnitude...

The point isn't the nuber of poeple. The point is she'll never know if only 100 people saw it vs 1,000,000,000. Meaning that the number of people who saw it doesn't change anything for her, as she'll never know how many people actually saw it. If only 100 people saw it, she'd feel the same as she does right now. If 1,000,000,000 people saw it, she'd still feel the same. Because she doesn't know whether it was 100, 1,000,000,000, or even 5,000,000,000 people saw it... And she most likely never will know how many people saw it. How would she? Or do you think you know how many people saw it?

Sahuagin posted...

well let's see... if zero people see it, that would be completely relieving, because the amount of embarrassment would be zero. if exactly 1 person saw it, that would almost not even be embarrassing, except in association with that one person. if 100 people saw it, similarly it would be low embarrassment relative only to that 100 people. if literally everyone in the world saw it, that would be maximally humiliating. why the hell do I need to explain this?

So, can you tell me how she would find out if zero people saw it? Even if zero people saw it, it's on the internet. So she wouldn't know zero people saw it. Though, it was never going to be zero as she did send it to someone, right? And can you also tell me how she would know if only one person saw it? For as she knows, the person she sent it to could show his/her friends that (s)he was with. Can you also tell me how she would find out if 100 people saw it or not. And finally, can you tell me how she would know if everyone in the world saw it. Because that's the whole point. She won't actually know how many people saw it. So, her embarrassment is the same no matter how many people saw it because...... She will never know how many people saw it... Simple as that. Unless you know how she could find out the exact number of people who saw it...
---

Sahuagin posted...

ok thank you for actually posting something reasonable.

so, you're making a distinction between an image being viewed, and an image being made available for viewing.

This is literally what me and @OhhhJa were saying earlier, but whatever...
---

LinkPizza posted...

she'll never know how many people actually saw it

ok so you're saying that since it being on the internet is effectively *as if* the whole world has seen it, that it then doesn't matter whether or not one particular person views it, because the effective amount of harm done already included that view.

that seems to make some sense, but I don't think I like the idea that that can change the act of viewing it from an immoral one into a not-immoral one.

---

Maybe Im trying to justify my own moral position but I would say once its out there, its out there and its gonna get seen no matter what.

Looking at it isnt the moral failing, hacking into the device and subsequently sharing it is.

---

Sahuagin posted...

ok so you're saying that since it being on the internet is effectively *as if* the whole world has seen it, that it then doesn't matter whether or not one particular person views it, because the effective amount of harm done already included that view.

that seems to make some sense, but I don't think I like the idea that that can change the act of viewing it from an immoral one into a not-immoral one.

What I'm saying is her embarrassment can't be affect by how many people saw it because she'll never know how any people actually saw it. You were saying that her embarrassment level was directly proportionate to how many people saw it. But it's not like her embarrassment changes as soon at 10 more people view the photo. As she wouldn't know. The point from earlier is that if it's already on the internet, it's not like more people viewing it would magically cause her any extra embarrassment.
---

FatalAccident posted...

Looking at it isnt the moral failing, hacking into the device and subsequently sharing it is.

if you hired someone to hack it for you, obtained them, and then viewed them, the act of viewing them would be an immoral act (right?)

---

Sahuagin posted...

if you hired someone to hack it for you, obtained them, and then viewed them, the act of viewing them would be an immoral act (right?)

I think the act of paying someone to hack a phone would be the immoral thing. But you could probably say the same for the viewing it... for that purpose. As they used illegal means to obtain the photo. Where everybody else who just happened to see it on google would have found it "legally"...
---

LinkPizza posted...

her embarrassment level was directly proportionate to how many people saw it

it is

LinkPizza posted...

it's not like her embarrassment changes as soon at 10 more people view the photo

it does

LinkPizza posted...

As she wouldn't know. The point from earlier is that if it's already on the internet, it's not like more people viewing it would magically cause her any extra embarrassment.

it does. people continuing to view it causes her ongoing and unending embarrassment and humiliation.

---

Sahuagin posted...

if you hired someone to hack it for you, obtained them, and then viewed them, the act of viewing them would be an immoral act (right?)

Yeah, because youve already started out with the intention of having someone hack (immoral) and distribute them to you (also immoral).

if theyre already out there and youre curious enough to look and not share it or make it a big deal, its not immoral IMO. Def somewhat questionable but not immoral

the only thing I would say is even if youre just looking, youre potentially creating a demand for the hackers even though theres no monetary incentive for them. So that could be immoral in itself. But hard to prove that you can create demand just by looking. Its the kind of thing thats always going to be in demand

---

Sahuagin posted...

it is
it does
it does. people continuing to view it causes her ongoing and unending embarrassment and humiliation.

How, though? Can you explain how she magically knows when more people view it? Because that's what you're saying...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I think the act of paying someone to hack a phone would be the immoral thing. But you could probably say the same for the viewing it... for that purpose. As they used illegal means to obtain the photo. Where everybody else who just happened to see it on google would have found it "legally"...

it would be an immoral act *every time* you viewed them

we're not talking about legally, we're talking about morally

---

LinkPizza posted...

How, though? Can you explain how she magically knows when more people view it? Because that's what you're saying...

if it's on the internet, then she knows that more people are viewing it all the time

---

LinkPizza posted...

Though, it was never going to be zero as she did send it to someone, right?

That's the whole consent point.

---

FatalAccident posted...

Yeah, because youve already started out with the intention of having someone hack (immoral) and distribute them to you (also immoral).

if theyre already out there and youre curious enough to look and not share it or make it a big deal, its not immoral IMO. Def somewhat questionable but not immoral

ok, if your friend hacked someone's phone, obtained images off of it, and then later randomly shared them with you, would it be immoral for you to "enjoy" them? (in this case you are aware of where they came from)

---

Sahuagin posted...

it would be an immoral act *every time* you viewed them
we're not talking about legally, we're talking about morally

Why would it be immoral if others looked at it, though? If somebody was curious and decided to look up Demi Lovato nude on google without knowing about the hacking, why would it be immoral? Because some actors have posed nude, or had nude scenes in movies before. So, it's not always a shock to see a celebrity nude. And maybe they wanted to know if they ever had a nude scene. And then they find those pics. So, why would it be immoral?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Why would it be immoral if others looked at it, though? If somebody was curious and decided to look up Demi Lovato nude on google without knowing about the hacking, why would it be immoral? Because some actors have posed nude, or had nude scenes in movies before. So, it's not always a shock to see a celebrity nude. And maybe they wanted to know if they ever had a nude scene. And then they find those pics. So, why would it be immoral?

where the hell did "without knowing about the hacking" come from?

---

Sahuagin posted...

if it's on the internet, then she knows that more people are viewing it all the time

No she doesn't. She only knows it's on the internet. She'll never know how many people viewed it. Or if anybody viewed it. And you were saying earlier that she would somehow magically know every time someone viewed it somehow...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

That's the whole consent point.

And? That's not the point. The point is that she would never know. If she didn't know that person shared her photo, she wouldn't be embarrassed even though someone else saw her nude photo. If he showed it to 100 people and she didn't know, she wouldn't be embarrassed. If he somehow showed it to 1,000,000 people and she never found out, she wouldn't be embarrassed because she wouldn't know...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And maybe they wanted to know if they ever had a nude scene. And then they find those pics. So, why would it be immoral?

Are you really unable to tell the difference of someone stumbling onto nude pics and someone knowing they're out there and looking at them without consent anyways?

---

Sahuagin posted...

where the hell did "without knowing about the hacking" come from?

I'm saying it someone who didn't know about the hacking found the Demi Lovato nude photos, why would it be immoral for them to look at them?
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Are you really unable to tell the difference of someone stumbling onto nude pics and someone knowing they're out there and looking at them without consent anyways?

I know the difference. I was asking a question based on a certain scenario...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I'm saying it someone who didn't know about the hacking found the Demi Lovato nude photos, why would it be immoral for them to look at them?

and where exactly was this under discussion? if you unwittingly see random images and don't know where they came from, that would probably not be immoral, but no one was talking about that.

---

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! that a girl who used to post nudes on Reddit for validation would throw a fit about anonymous strangers on the internet seeing leaked nudes of a celebrity while accusing others of projection and questioning their morals.

---

Sahuagin posted...

and where exactly was this under discussion? if you unwittingly see random images and don't know where they came from, that would probably not be immoral, but no one was talking about that.

I'm just asking you a question. Stop deflecting and answer it. You're not the only one who can ask questions, you know...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I'm just asking you a question. Stop deflecting and answer it. You're not the only one who can ask questions, you know...

I did answer it. thanks for derailing the conversation though...

---

LinkPizza posted...

And? That's not the point. The point is that she would never know. If she didn't know that person shared her photo, she wouldn't be embarrassed even though someone else saw her nude photo. If he showed it to 100 people and she didn't know, she wouldn't be embarrassed. If he somehow showed it to 1,000,000 people and she never found out, she wouldn't be embarrassed because she wouldn't know...

Consent is the point because they are leaked pics and she's a celebrity. This is already a story so she knows the pictures are out there being viewed. And even if she wasn't a celebrity and didn't know the content was out there people viewing the content don't have the consent to view them.

---

Sahuagin posted...

I did answer it. thanks for derailing the conversation though...

Did you? I didn't see. You just kept asking why I was asking questions like I wasn't allowed. And this is part of the conversation. About morality and all. But whatever. Seems like you don't like it when the conversation isn't under your full control...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Consent is the point because they are leaked pics and she's a celebrity. This is already a story so she knows the pictures are out there being viewed. And even if she wasn't a celebrity and didn't know the content was out there people viewing the content don't have the consent to view them.

But my point earlier was that she wouldn't just magically get more embarrassed because more people viewed it. Because she will never actually know how many people viewed it. She won't magically get a signal in her brain every time someone viewed it. Or has a phone send a notification every time it's viewed...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Did you? I didn't see. You just kept asking why I was asking questions like I wasn't allowed. And this is part of the conversation. About morality and all. But whatever. Seems like you don't like it when the conversation isn't under your full control...

jeepers...

Sahuagin posted...

and where exactly was this under discussion? if you unwittingly see random images and don't know where they came from, that would probably not be immoral, but no one was talking about that.

your question was a non-sequitur

---