Post by @nsfwdaily@mastodon.social

2026-07-20 22:53 UTC

@pharmafemboy@estradiol.city @alice@lgbtqia.space When a person posts a video publicly—without watermarks, a paywall, or an explicit "private/only for me" setting—they give implicit consent for its distribution. This does not constitute revenge porn or the sharing of non-consensual intimate images. Revenge porn laws (in the US, Europe, etc.) require a violation of privacy—specifically, instances where content was private and subsequently leaked. This is a different situation

Replies (2)

@rogue_cells@chaos.social 2026-07-20 23:57

@nsfwdaily@mastodon.social @pharmafemboy@estradiol.city @alice@lgbtqia.space You're ignoring the obvious elephant in the room: Without asking the original creator, you have no idea whether the "publicly available content" was shared publicly, or was leaked illegally by a third party. In fact, that happens on a daily basis with porn, there is even an illegal industry behind this. PornHub, xHamster, etc. are also guilty of hosting illegal content in certain cases. Long story short, you have no fucking clue what you're even sharing, so STOP

Open ##3972980
@NosirrahSec@infosec.exchange 2026-07-21 00:02

@nsfwdaily@mastodon.social @pharmafemboy@estradiol.city @alice@lgbtqia.space "...they give implicit consent for its distribution." Uhhh, no, but I am really interested in how you come to this conclusion.

Open ##3973045