What happened to anon-ib and are there any sites like it ???
What happened to OP's picture source and are there any pictures like it ???
>>767722912
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.
>>767723231
why tried to warn you that cp laws were a slippery slope but you wouldn't listen and now here we are.
>>767723231
>Revenge
>Victimless
>Being this stupid
>>767723782
Revenge porn is what they call it which is strange because posting nudes causes no real harm to anyone. Hardly revenge if it causes no harm at all.
>>767723782
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.
People were posting names, personal info etc.
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?
>>767723966
Oh no random strangers will know what a girl looks like naked and what area she lives in. How will these brave women ever go on with their lives?
Trust and privacy are important. That not because your are some trash, sharing without consent that everyone want that kind of society.
>>767724028
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.
>>767723902
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?
>>767724221
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.
>>767724344
That's a bad analogy.
>>767723863
Harmful if anyone they know comes across it. If it's no big deal you should post pictures of your dick and face here. Personal info optional if you want the full experience.
>>767724071
yeah but weirdos would track down and msg them with the pics and shit.
>>767724448
Why?
>>767724401
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.
>>767724492
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.
>>767724533
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.
>>767724583
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.
>>767724529
Because in your example theres an actual victim, the person who has had property stolen. Sharing nudes is not stealing property.
>>767724221
>Better start getting hoes to sign waivers when you shoot them.
I've always just done whatever I wanted with nudes. Nobody has ever tried to stop me in the past.
>>767724645
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.
>>767724839
>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.
>>767724796
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.
>>767724028
>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.
>>767725070
>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.
>>767725007
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
>>warrant granted.
>>767725163
>magistrate
Are you in the UK by any chance? I understand they take such nonsensical things more seriously over there.
>>767722912
terrible implants
she should sue
>>767725229
no magistrates are warrant granting officials in the US too.
>>767722912
Why don't you cunts stop debating if it's right or wrong and start posting alternatives.
>>767725229
If it's so nonsensical then upload your nudes for all to see.
>>767724839
This is such a dumb thing to have the police look into. Public resources being wasted on cleaning up the reputation of loose women.
>>767725366
because there are no good alternatives yet and/or the alternatives that exist don't ned more public exposure.
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.
>>767725392
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.
>>767722912
>SO.O He is behind of it?
>>767725382
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.
>>767725556
I dont think you can be fired for being a whore.
There are already 2 new ones up. one is an exact replica and one is totally new
>>767725528
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.
>>767725652
whats the name of the sites
>>767725684
only women and not men*
>>767725741
shhhhhh
>>767725684
the cops would have a hard time keeping a straight face tbh
>>767725684
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.
Why?
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.
>>767722912
>>767725921
realest comment i've ever seen.
newfag retard faggots couldn't stop doxxing. it was a matter of time tbh.
>>767725988
I bet a good amount of users on there were glow in the dark niggers who's job it was to doxx people to justify more state controls on the internet.
>>767725983
1/7
2/7
3/7
4/7
>>767725921
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.
5/7
6/7
1
>>767726164
Bullshit. Like I said, all they'd have to say is "sorry but we don't have enough evidence to pursue charges" and what could you do?
>>767726164
>you could sue them for constitutional violations of equal protection.
lmao yeah cause that would actually ever happen in the real world
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.
>>767726104
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.
>>767726240
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.
>>767726240
says the person that is definitely not a lawyer and not aware of the history of such cases. smh.
newchan dot tk is the new site
>>767726227
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.
>>767726383
>tk
>>767726383
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"
>>767726299
smh
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.
>>767726521
i see, thanks
>>767726371
Suing for constitutional rights violations is a long, tedious and expensive process that seldom leads to a conviction.
>>767725921
Well written truth.
>>767726566
Unless you're a woman.
>>767726336
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.
>>767726383
No "cosplay" section? Fuck off, I only used that site to see free patreon shit
>>767726338
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.
>>767722912
New chan dot t k
>>767726336
It would be very simple to do, so Occam's razor does not apply here.
>>767726687
and it's ruined.
>>767726435
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?
>>767726735
It's ruined anyway if there's no content.
>>767726687
dude, there's like 6 people here claiming it's a scam and/or shit.
Nah.
>>767726622
What are the potential consequences for US police ignoring a case of discrimination against white males?
>>767726777
touché
This slut had nudes all over the net. Then bitched when people shared them. Women are stupid cunts.
>>767726566
PROTIP:
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.
>>767726785
Use a Tor browser and see for yourself.
>>767726903
I'm not even going to bother.
Fuck newchan/dizcord/ukslags etc.
Maybe we should start spamming them to go to 4chan instead, use their own advertising style.
>>767726754
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.
See
>>767726878
>>767726795
police do not investigate discrimination. it's not a crime, it's a civil matter. contact a lawyer, not their job.
>>767723102
porn actress ... Nadya somethingsomething, russian last name, you'll find her
>>767726878
Have there ever been cases in the US of discrimination against white males that ended in a conviction?
>>767727198
settlement, I mean.
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.
>>767727198
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.
>>767723231
Nadya Nabakova
>>767727376
>>767727198
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination
>>767727376
>1) "discrimination" is not a crime. Nobody is getting convicted for anything
I corrected myself immediately after. Chill, bro.
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.
What if you just posted a bunch of pictures you got online and said it was a specific girl to troll losers on anon-ib
>>767727653
s/falling/fapping
>>767727762
harassment, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress.