What happened to anon-ib and are there any sites like it ???
Dumb whores got upset that their nudes were posted online and revenge porn laws were passed that basically shut it down. Getting all uppity over a literal victimless crime. It's not like they got raped.
Shut up white knitw faggot. Women know that if they send njdes that they might end up online, even if they trust the guy or love them. If they were smart enough to begin with they either wouldn't send njdes or they'd send them but not care if they get spread.
I've shared a lot of nudes from a few girls I was dating or just hooking up with and I can confidently say that it never caused any harm at all. In any case doesn't the fact that I took the pictures make them my property to do with as I please?
It meant that before revenge porn laws, now not so much.
Laws very state to state / country to country. But the usual gist of them is that you cannot post 'sexual' images of a person without their consent. Even if you took them. And consent to taking the picture, is not the same as consent to them being posted.
Sometimes the law has a modifier that requires the posting to be with intent to harass, but not all laws have that caveat.
Better start getting hoes to sign waivers when you shoot them.
If you give someone your house key to walk your dog and they decide to rob you, is it fine because you should have known it was possible?
Do you think the police would ignore that shit?
Seems like a very difficult thing to prove. What if I lose the device the photos are stored on and somebody else picks it up? I used to work in self storage and once came across a flash drive with photos of a very ugly woman naked.
did your IP address post the images? If yes, then you are responsible. If no, then you're probably good claiming you got hacked. But if they really want to railroad you then can get your devices and say there is no evidence of you being hacked.
The difference is that I don't share nudes of myself with anyone because I don't want them seen by anybody. Women who consent to having nudes taken are admitting to wanting to be seen naked. It caused no harm for them to be seen by one person or ten. Embarrassing is not the same thing as harmful.
Sounds like one of those things that's technically illegal but very rarely will somebody ever get charged because cops have better things to do with their time than do damage control for whores.
This is the stupidest god damn thing I've ever read. A woman consenting to having nudes taken are consenting to one person seeing them. By that logic you can't rape a woman who has had sex with someone before because, hey, she's consented to sex with someone in the past so that means she's pre-consented to everyone fucking her. Idiot.
you overestimate the intelligence and awareness of the average person.
If a bitch goes to the cops and wants it investigated, it will be looked at, at least enough to get the IP records. And I'd guess a vast majority of the time those people were stupid enough to post from a real IP address they can be connected to.
Easy to get away with? More or less. People rarely getting charged if its investigated? doubtful. People are stupid as fuck.
>at least enough to get the IP records.
A warrant is required to get such records, probable cause is required to get a warrant. Since when is the word of an actual whore probable cause? Cops barely even investigate a large amount of actual rape cases, this seems a bit beneath them.
and have any of the nudes you posted been identified as the girl in question, leading to anon autists messaging them and sending their shit to people that know them?
If there girl is never identified 99% chance there is no problem. If they are identified publicly, you are almost certainly gonna have a problem.
>ve shared a lot of nudes from a few girls I was dating or just hooking up with and I can confidently say that it never caused any harm at all.
Same. I never posted to anonib but I did share them with a few guys who were in the same college as us. Nothing ever came of it.
Majority of the images on there were already publicly accessible anyway. There's practically no difference between posting the image or a link to the image on fb / insta / tumblr / fetlife or whatever. Or screenshots. So I'd say 90% of what was on there couldn't even be defined as revenge porn because it was already publicly available.
>and have any of the nudes you posted been identified as the girl in question, leading to anon autists messaging them and sending their shit to people that know them?
Only on two occasions. On one she never brought it up to me and on the second she confronted me about it and I admitted that I had shared them. Nothing ever came of it.
you have zero understanding of what probable cause is or how a warrant is obtained. there is zero difficult in getting a warrant.
>>whore sees nude of herself posted on Interwebz and lives in a state with revenge porn law
>>whore tells police "I did not post that of myself!"
>>therefore, Police have probable cause image was posted without her consent
>>cops tell magistrate "victim" identified herself on site, did not post herself
Btw lads, this is just a heads up and another instance of female hypocrisy. Do you know how common it is for females to share nude pictures of their flings / boyfriends / ex-boyfriends with their friends? They ALWAYS do it. Not only that but I know for a fact that women everywhere often join up to local facebook groups whereby they collectively post nude photographs of themselves, their partners and whoever else, videos too, performing sexual acts too, without the consent of their partners.
I used to speak to a single mum not too far from me on FB a lot and she would screenshot the conversations in this one group she was in where many of the women were married and posting images / videos of their husband's fucking them / giving them head, dick pics or whatever else. And they'd admit that they'd get off on it because they didn't know about it.
So I would argue that they do this shit just as much as men only they're so protected both by law and by the sisterhood that they can brazenly do it practically publicly with everyone they're sharing it knowing who they are. As opposed to us who have to be anon because we face prison or a life of destitution thanks to a mere accusation.
police enforce the laws. they can't pick and choose. the stupid thing was passing the laws in the first place.
If you want to solve the problem, change the cultural norms so people don't think nudes are so offensive. As it is now, it can affect employment, so, there are real effects. There shouldn't be; the whole thing is puritanical pearl clutching mixed with slut shaming. But there are effects.
It's nonsensical to involve the cops. They have better things to do. I don't post nudes with identifying info because I have enough sense to know that I can never used that photo. These women who got exposed brought it on themselves 100% and the cops shouldn't bother with helping people who don't have enough sense to understand how bad of an idea sharing nudes is. I believe the best way to dissuade women from having nudes exposed is to let a few women suffer the imaginary consequences of being exposed.
there is no revenge porn law that protects only women and only men. They are equally liable for the same actions. The difference is men give way less of a fuck so they aren't going to press charges with the police.
You have too much faith in the legal system. You really think that if I was to go to the police and tell them that a bunch of girls have been looking at a dick pic I sent privately to one girl that they'd do anything? Even if I wasn't laughed out the door and genuinely pursued legal action, they'd throw the case out because I'm male, and you know they would. Even if they had to lie to me to get me to back off, they'd just say, oh we have no evidence sorry so we can't pursue this case. But if I was a woman they'd be all over it.
Because victimising women is politically viable. Victimising men is not. Demonising men however is.
So women get away with it because they're protected politically, not legally, and men do not because they're targeted politically, not legally.
somebody took too many redpills this morning.
Yes, if you pressed charges, police would investigate. If they didn't, and they did for females, you could sue them for constitutional violations of equal protection.
it honestly doesn't make any sense why anonib is considered a "revenge porn site" and gets taken down when compared to this site. is 4chan next? there are literally hourly pics you shouldn't share threads. the internet is getting more and more boring every year.
next you're gonna start off on how sandyhook was a false flag to take your guns. smh.
Occam's razor here anon. Which is more likely? that there is a gov't conspiracy to dox sluts on the internet to take away muh freedoms, or that dumb anons posted sluts names?
If they gov't wanted to conspire to justify internet censorship they'd use muslim terrorism, or at the very least 'sex trafficking' not doxxing nudes.
I was mugged at knifepoint when I was a kid, by a grown man. Called the police as soon as I got home. I'd seen him around loads beforehand so he was definitely local.
What did the police do? Nothing. I even told them I'd seen him around before lots of times and I thought he lived in a specific estate as that's where I always saw him and that's the direction he went towards.
Nothing happened, we never heard from the police again.
They simply abandon cases if they can't be arsed or if they don't have enough evidence. The same thing's happened loads here in the UK. Take the fucking muslim rape gangs for example.
you file a lawsuit for violation of equal protection. Get discovery and show that they investigated cases for females but not males.
There is not exactly a wide range in degrees of evidence for these cases. There is a website where the pictures are posted, and there is someone saying they did not post themselves.
totally not run by scammers who just want to resell oc, and get stroppy if you don't give em full name.
Fuck Keith Lemon. Hope he gets v&.
inb4: "Keith Lemon totally doesn't run it anymore"
the reason it got taken down is that it was hosted in the Netherlands, which has strict revenge porn laws, and females from the Netherlands reported that their iclouds got hacked and the nudes were posted on anon-ib.
Thats revenge porn + computer fraud. More than enough for Dutch police to seize local servers.
It'll be both. Everyone knows that government operatives run honeypots online. And everyone knows that you have organisations like JIDF changing information online and posting propaganda all the time. So it's really not a stretch to consider the possibility that there are also other agents online focusing on spreading people's personal information / photographs or whatever else to stack up a massive pile of court cases on identity theft / revenge porn or whatever else, on top of the genuine cases, in an effort to push stronger controls and regulations on the internet. Which is literally the number one thorn in the side of the state because of the freedom of information, which revenge porn laws and internet controls in general are a direct antithesis of.
It's as simple as this.
Does the state benefit from a free and open internet? No.
Does the state benefit from a restricted, controlled and heavily surveilled internet? Yes.
You're naive if you think the state won't actively try and restrict internet freedoms by any means necessary if it's beneficial to them.
that's the UK. idk the UK legal system. I'm speaking about the US.
In the US police are allowed to not investigate cases. But they can't not investigate cases based on race/gender. They have to neglect their duties relatively equally to everyone.
And how much money will that cost me? You think I'll have no trouble finding a solicitor that'll genuinely want to take on the state? You don't think the courts and what not will try to cover it up? You don't think it'd take massive public exposure via the media to gain any traction, to force them into exposing themselves to quell dissent? You don't think after a decade of fighting to get someone charged for not investigating my case properly that all that will happen is one specific officer will be used as the fallguy while the girl in question will still go scott-free because of some technicality within the law? You don't think the likelyhood is that at some point it'll be me facing charges for a possibly racist tweet that I posted about 5 years ago? And as a result of that case my previous case will be abandoned?
This slut had nudes all over the net. Then bitched when people shared them. Women are stupid cunts.
Constitutional Rights suits are civil suits and do not involve a "conviction". There is no crime. It's a settlement or a judgement.
I'm sure you could find some red pill lawyer that wanted to make a name for himself if there was actual evidence of a police department systematically only investigating cases for one gender, and he'd take it on contingent.
if you're in UK you are fucked. they don't allow lawyers to operate on contingent fee arrangements. If you are in US, the land of ambulance chasers, you are golden, as long as you have even a slightly real case.
For all the UK fags unfamiliar with how the glorious US legal system operates, lawyers are allowed to take cases for no money upfront with an agreement that they get a portion of the final judgement / settlement if there is one, and nothing if they lose. This created our entire industry of ambulance chasing lawyers who will take on any case if they think they have a chance to get money out of it at the end.
Also it's not about winning the case. it's about getting them to settle so they don't have to go to court at all. 90%+ of cases are settled out of court.
jfc you are not a bright one are you.
1) "discrimination" is not a crime. Nobody is getting convicted for anything
2) "discrimination" is at most a civil matter, you can get money or a demand from the court that the defendant do or not do something.
3) yes white men win discrimination suits all the time. There is entire category of cases called "reverse discrimination suits" brought by white men. Look it up. I'm sure there's a wiki. These cases have been tried and won for 50+ years.
This is the cringiest thread I think I've seen in 14 years on this garbage site. You people are living justification of the media's newfound bloodlust for so-called incels. I send my wife dick pics all the time, I have explicit chats with people all the time. These things are done in confidence and the recipient of a communication (usually) does not get to arbitrarily invent additional terms for release.
If my wife, or any of the hundreds of other people who probably have some damning imagery or rant I've made over the years were to make a point about releasing it and getting it in front of my firm's HR or the media, I could definitely lose my job. This is not because I'm a moron who sends dick picks unsolicited to teenagers, it's because I'm a gregarious partier and I like to enjoy life.
You guys have a lot of serious misconceptions about how the legal systems around the world operate, and you're lying to yourselves by saying the release of a video of you falling on Skype with your long distance girlfriend is somehow not damaging to you, or that you deserve it because you were dumb enough to Skype with her.
My gfs and my wife have all sent me nudes when I'm far away or travelling, and I've done the same, because that's what you do when you're horned up and trying not to drain your balls into some thirsty local and trash your marriage. Remind me again why should I hate on girls for sending me free tittays?
This shit ruins lives, because our societies are sexually liberated only in all the wrong ways. Regardless of that, the personalities we cultivate in public are rarely the same as the ones in our private lives, and leaking/doxxing is a definite violation of that veil with actual consequences. If a girl I've ever Skyped with or sent a dick pic leaked that shit with a snarky FB message, and anything bad happened as a result, I would have an excellent case and my legion of crafty Jew lawyers would extract payment from her for as long as she lived.