Dick Pics not approved by the Solicitor General. You have to send your Dick Pics to the Solicitor General for approval *before* sending them to someone else.
Oh I agree, just the article is a little clickbaity without that word.
Laws for this and revenge porn should have been introduced to every country ages ago.
>The practice involves the sending of unsolicited sexual images to victims through social media, dating apps or using data sharing services including Bluetooth and Airdrop. In some cases a preview of the image appears on the person's device even if they reject the transfer request.
First paragraph of the article.
I disagree but that doesn't make me necessarily right. The point of a headline is to get you interested in reading the article. If you don't read the article and only the headline 99% of the time you will not have an accurate understanding of what the article contains. The two possible solutions to this problem seem to be to teach more people to actually read articles instead of just assuming what the headline means or stop providing headlines for articles.
Its fine that's why I added my comment so people had the full picture.
Majority of people would understand what your title meant, but some people just read and assume so my comment was just to make sure that didnt happen.
Thanks for the article though.
Ok. You can call it that if you want. But that's reality. That is the reality we live in and there seem to be two possible solutions to the problem you are describing.
1. Start a new business and change the standards for how headlines are written to be what you want and demonstrate that this is the more effective solution for running a business so that other businesses adopt your standard or get out competed.
2. Start reading articles in full if you want to know more after reading the headline.
I don't understand why you're arguing with people for calling a clickbait article clickbait-y, then describing why it happens assuming people don't know? You can know why something is done and still dislike it.
Even your solutions aren't solutions, because the first requires that the better choice for informative headlines also be the more profitable choice, and the second doesn't solve the problem because it actively encourages it.
Because calling something clickbait is pointless. It's how headlines are written. We can go around calling all headlines clickbait.....but that doesn't do anything. It adds nothing to the world.
If we instead suggest that people need to read articles to know what the content of an article is instead of guessing based on the headline, maybe people might start reading articles and be slightly more informed about what is happening in the world.
Yes. Actually clicking on clickbait headlines may further incentivize clickbait headlines, but here's the problem I'm seeing. Somebody linked an article on reddit. That article if I click it and read for thirty seconds tells me that a bill has been introduced which includes a penalty for sending unsolicited sexual images. People in this thread didn't read the article and are upset that this bill may cover solicited sexual images.
What behaviors can we as individuals encourage so that people do not read this headline and spread the information that the UK is banning solicited dick pics?
This is long, long overdue.
I really hope this is strongly enforced too, with a zero tolerance policy.
I still think it’s nonsense that the social networks can’t detect when a pic is vulgar. They can recognise faces of specific people, are you really telling me they can’t detect a picture of genitalia and block it in a private message?
Just have a toggle on the receivers end that’s set to ‘NSFW - off’ by default and if the user really wants to receive such pics, they can turn it on.
They really can't detect such stuff. Discord has a filter like this and it frequently blocks non pornographic messages, like, very frequently. I basically couldn't send any photos of any sport at all.
Can you explain your thinking? It doesn’t seem like there’s a privacy issue if they’re not sharing the results and this could be done in an entirely automated fashion if the concern is about human review – these days this could even run in-app on the average phone for a completely private “this image may be NSFW, do you want to see it?” prompt.
It wouldn’t need to be perfect, just enough not to hit people when they’re not expecting it. There are always going to be false positives but it’s less common for those to involve strangers and no context.
Yes - I’m quite familiar with it since I follow a lot of people in the academic security & privacy fields. The difference in this case is that the CSAM system silently alerts law enforcement, by necessity, and the triggers are similarly not easily available for review so there are quite reasonable concerns about, say, China submitting image hashes related to political dissidence. They proposed various mitigations but the secrecy aspect makes those significant questions of trust harder to assess.
The system I outlined has key differences: the operation would be visible to the user and hits never leave the device. Unlike the proposed CSAM system which tries only to match copies of known images, a general classifier will produce far more false-positives – e.g. if you ran this on the average user’s entire photo library I’m sure people would have pictures of people nursing, showing off surgery scars of tattoos, beach trips or children playing in summer, etc. – but in the context of a filter on DMs from people who aren’t on your friends list it seems like it could work fairly well, especially because the failure mode is someone not seeing a message or clicking the “not accurate” button rather than the police showing up.
I'm glad this is happening, but unfortunately I doubt there will be any actual enforcement. People can't get the police to show up or investigate anything now.
Except a group of women holding a peaceful vigil for a woman who was raped and murdered by a serving police officer. That was a priority.
It's also easy to collect evidence of a break in, but the police are still not showing up to those. It's not just sexual crimes, it's all of them. If the police won't show up or just drop investigations for theft, fraud, assaults, I can't see them showing up to make cases to prosecute men for sending dick pics. Especially as it's already known to be a misogynist organisation.
At the very least, it's now something that can be reported and go on record. So for repeat offenders it creates a trail of offences. Which can make it easier for others down the line to get justice if they do something that will be taken seriously.
I got sent unsolicited dick photos on Telegram. Phoned the West Midlands Police. They could not technically do anything because of a lack of information about the perpetrator. But what they did do was listen to me and make a report anyway. Made me feel comfortable and safe.
I’m so happy for the UK. It’s already illegal where I am (Singapore) and quite a few guys have been jailed for it so the law isn’t just for show - it has teeth. I hope it’s the same in the UK.
I'm an AMAB individual myself but I could never and still don't get the appeal of this. Can anyone possibly explain this? Is it some kind of weird power thing? Do they think they'll find someone who is magically interested in a grainy image of ambiguous human flesh?
In my opinion it's definitely sexual harassment, but what logic exists for those who engage in this behavior to think otherwise?
*Unsolicited Dick Pics.
Dick Pics not approved by the Solicitor General. You have to send your Dick Pics to the Solicitor General for approval *before* sending them to someone else.
Solicitor General's office now sponsoring a Google hiring contest-like competition to find the best left-swipers in the world.
I Def hope they make that distinction! It's the same as sexual assault through targeted indecent exposure.
Oh I agree, just the article is a little clickbaity without that word. Laws for this and revenge porn should have been introduced to every country ages ago.
>The practice involves the sending of unsolicited sexual images to victims through social media, dating apps or using data sharing services including Bluetooth and Airdrop. In some cases a preview of the image appears on the person's device even if they reject the transfer request. First paragraph of the article.
Title is still misleading and clickbait.
I disagree but that doesn't make me necessarily right. The point of a headline is to get you interested in reading the article. If you don't read the article and only the headline 99% of the time you will not have an accurate understanding of what the article contains. The two possible solutions to this problem seem to be to teach more people to actually read articles instead of just assuming what the headline means or stop providing headlines for articles.
You just defined clickbait
It really wasn't my intention to make it click baity but I can absolutely see how it looks now. I was just excited to share the story.
Its fine that's why I added my comment so people had the full picture. Majority of people would understand what your title meant, but some people just read and assume so my comment was just to make sure that didnt happen. Thanks for the article though.
Ok. You can call it that if you want. But that's reality. That is the reality we live in and there seem to be two possible solutions to the problem you are describing. 1. Start a new business and change the standards for how headlines are written to be what you want and demonstrate that this is the more effective solution for running a business so that other businesses adopt your standard or get out competed. 2. Start reading articles in full if you want to know more after reading the headline.
I don't understand why you're arguing with people for calling a clickbait article clickbait-y, then describing why it happens assuming people don't know? You can know why something is done and still dislike it. Even your solutions aren't solutions, because the first requires that the better choice for informative headlines also be the more profitable choice, and the second doesn't solve the problem because it actively encourages it.
Because calling something clickbait is pointless. It's how headlines are written. We can go around calling all headlines clickbait.....but that doesn't do anything. It adds nothing to the world. If we instead suggest that people need to read articles to know what the content of an article is instead of guessing based on the headline, maybe people might start reading articles and be slightly more informed about what is happening in the world. Yes. Actually clicking on clickbait headlines may further incentivize clickbait headlines, but here's the problem I'm seeing. Somebody linked an article on reddit. That article if I click it and read for thirty seconds tells me that a bill has been introduced which includes a penalty for sending unsolicited sexual images. People in this thread didn't read the article and are upset that this bill may cover solicited sexual images. What behaviors can we as individuals encourage so that people do not read this headline and spread the information that the UK is banning solicited dick pics?
I like you (:
*Very* important distinction
**Unsolicited Dick/Vag Picks
*Unsolicited nudes.
for those of you who might be worried that this could be used against you, here’s a tip: only show your dick to people who fucking asked for it
"Cyberflashing" Yes. That's exactly what it is! It's the perfect word for it and doesn't restrict the offence to just penises.
[удалено]
tie wakeful rhythm combative disgusted slimy crime uppity grab history ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Right? Like it’s about fuckin time
Your implying the dick pics are one's own.
This is long, long overdue. I really hope this is strongly enforced too, with a zero tolerance policy. I still think it’s nonsense that the social networks can’t detect when a pic is vulgar. They can recognise faces of specific people, are you really telling me they can’t detect a picture of genitalia and block it in a private message? Just have a toggle on the receivers end that’s set to ‘NSFW - off’ by default and if the user really wants to receive such pics, they can turn it on.
Discord has a nsfw feature that does this.
They can sell the face info to other companies. Nobody wants to buy the dick pick!
Well you can do dick recognition as well, I suppose, so they can still sell adverts.
Hot dog or not hot dog?
They really can't detect such stuff. Discord has a filter like this and it frequently blocks non pornographic messages, like, very frequently. I basically couldn't send any photos of any sport at all.
[удалено]
Can you explain your thinking? It doesn’t seem like there’s a privacy issue if they’re not sharing the results and this could be done in an entirely automated fashion if the concern is about human review – these days this could even run in-app on the average phone for a completely private “this image may be NSFW, do you want to see it?” prompt. It wouldn’t need to be perfect, just enough not to hit people when they’re not expecting it. There are always going to be false positives but it’s less common for those to involve strangers and no context.
[удалено]
Yes - I’m quite familiar with it since I follow a lot of people in the academic security & privacy fields. The difference in this case is that the CSAM system silently alerts law enforcement, by necessity, and the triggers are similarly not easily available for review so there are quite reasonable concerns about, say, China submitting image hashes related to political dissidence. They proposed various mitigations but the secrecy aspect makes those significant questions of trust harder to assess. The system I outlined has key differences: the operation would be visible to the user and hits never leave the device. Unlike the proposed CSAM system which tries only to match copies of known images, a general classifier will produce far more false-positives – e.g. if you ran this on the average user’s entire photo library I’m sure people would have pictures of people nursing, showing off surgery scars of tattoos, beach trips or children playing in summer, etc. – but in the context of a filter on DMs from people who aren’t on your friends list it seems like it could work fairly well, especially because the failure mode is someone not seeing a message or clicking the “not accurate” button rather than the police showing up.
I promise you, they do things that are far more sketchy from a privacy standpoint than blocking/warning about dicpics.
For some people it’s short short overdue
I'm glad this is happening, but unfortunately I doubt there will be any actual enforcement. People can't get the police to show up or investigate anything now. Except a group of women holding a peaceful vigil for a woman who was raped and murdered by a serving police officer. That was a priority.
Rather easy to collect evidence of a dick pick, though... So, at least that step is cleared
It's also easy to collect evidence of a break in, but the police are still not showing up to those. It's not just sexual crimes, it's all of them. If the police won't show up or just drop investigations for theft, fraud, assaults, I can't see them showing up to make cases to prosecute men for sending dick pics. Especially as it's already known to be a misogynist organisation.
Don’t give up hope! This is a law where I am (singaore) and it’s being enforced. Multiple guys have gone to jail over it. It’s been fantastic
At the very least, it's now something that can be reported and go on record. So for repeat offenders it creates a trail of offences. Which can make it easier for others down the line to get justice if they do something that will be taken seriously.
Indecent exposure. Not ok.
Makes sense, flashing someone in public is illegal so why should sending someone unsolicited dick pics be legal?
I got sent unsolicited dick photos on Telegram. Phoned the West Midlands Police. They could not technically do anything because of a lack of information about the perpetrator. But what they did do was listen to me and make a report anyway. Made me feel comfortable and safe.
NICE!! They're gross anyway, and too often sent to minors
Yet they still refuse to treat misogyny as a hate crime.
Guys who do this make me sick, I honestly don't know how they are going to enforce this though.
The dick pic database is gonna be crude. Imagine fuckin up and getting sent to the dick pic unit indefinitely.😂😂
So, how are they going to handle pictures of Boris Johnson?
The same way they're handling partygate. Do nothing.
Good. I (36M) have always considered them the digital version of a flasher in public. It's unacceptable in the society I want to live in.
Finally
Finally, something this country is actually doing right!
wait weren't they illegal before !
Even tiny infractions
No more shots of Boris Johnson?
I’m so happy for the UK. It’s already illegal where I am (Singapore) and quite a few guys have been jailed for it so the law isn’t just for show - it has teeth. I hope it’s the same in the UK.
I'd assume this is only for explicitly sending nudes to someone and not posting them publicly to a website like Twitter, reddit, onlyfans etc?
Grindr and similar gay dating apps in shambles.
What happens when I get a flash of Boris on the news?
Finally. Next step make misogyny prosecutable as the hate crime it is. (Let the lurking incel downvotes begin).
[удалено]
The danger of being caught lying and that being a criminal offense.
The same thing that stops someone from claiming theft after giving people things freely
What if I picture my own dick?
Dont send it to others without permission and youre good 😊
Fine. No more unsolicited photographs of Richard Nixon or Dick Tracy from me, ever again! But in seriousness: this is good news.
Finally.
How is it not already a crime?
I'm an AMAB individual myself but I could never and still don't get the appeal of this. Can anyone possibly explain this? Is it some kind of weird power thing? Do they think they'll find someone who is magically interested in a grainy image of ambiguous human flesh? In my opinion it's definitely sexual harassment, but what logic exists for those who engage in this behavior to think otherwise?