@meena the copyright owner of the work (the photographer) is the person who needs to consent, not the people depicted.

@meena we don't own our appearances or photos taken of us, nor should any reasonable person expect to.

@sneak that's a fucked up concept, mate

@sneak see also https://www.facesofopensource.com/
vs
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/dec/23/nft-faces-of-open-source/

@meena that's what the society has agreed upon, it's not my concept, take it up with them. that's how it works presently, though.

i'm fine with it.

@meena this sort of whining is pretty dumb imo; they go on for a while about copyrights of images, then admit that NFTs have nothing to do with copyrights. who gives a shit if someone is buying or selling an nft with a string that matches your name on it, or a URL to an image of you? nobody is being harmed, it's just whiners looking for an excuse to whine. (for the record, i think NFTs are dumb.)

@sneak the things being harmed are the environment, and gullible people's finances. some poor country's epectric power infrastructure.

Also: If i don't agree with the above, but my picture is being sold to further the above causes, then my reputation is also harmed.

@meena NFTs aren't "picture [is] being sold" so please don't with the red herring

@sneak most people don't know that difference, so i'm not sure it makes any sense to make a difference. Especially when it comes to selling someone my face.

now, to circle back to Lena: Aside from the fact that no one asked Lena if she wants to be the standard image on which to calibrate image processesing.
No one seems to have asked any women if she wants to be in a room full of men, when a picture of a naked woman comes up on the screen in a highly professional context, where all men start laughing like teenagers.
No one seems to have asked any black people if using the image of a naked white woman is the best idea for calibration of cameras.

similarly, no one profits from NFTs, except for a tiny minority that's already rich.
but a lot of people lose out.

@meena 100% of people understand that when they buy an NFT "with your face on it" that your face has not been sold and that you still have it.

you're also factually incorrect with your closing statement about NFTs, even though i agree with the general premise that NFTs are stupid; you should make sure you use accurate claims when you criticize something, otherwise your criticism is pointless.

@meena and re: lena, it's easy to construct a narrative ("no one seems to have asked") around this general trend of performative wokeness but this falls in the same category of renaming the "primary bedroom": nobody is practically harmed by any of this, and it's simply cultural alignment signaling, like wearing a sports jersey. it's not productive or useful to anyone for its ostensible purpose. ask the supposedly marginalized. nobody who matters cares one bit about a pinup.

@meena when you use terms like "highly professional context" (like "highly classified" - either it is or it isn't) it serves to illustrate that this is more about narrative than fact. OF COURSE it is unreasonable for someone to do something unprofessional in a HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT. but that compression loses 100% of the facts of this issue, which is that nobody is harmed, nobody is excluded, and no consent has been broken.

@meena furthermore the general american corporate trend of making everything unsexy and sterile and un-aesthetic because PROFESSIONALISM where you can't have any opinion or style is fundamentally rooted in some american puritanical offend-no-one anti-sex crap and it can go die in a fire. nude photography IS NOT UNPROFESSIONAL. you could make an argument for hardcore porn being unprofessional, but a page from something sold widely on newsstands? NOPE.

@meena not only is it art in the sense that it has artistic value (which possibly all porn, including hardcore porn, fits), but non-pornographic nude photography (like Lena) is also fine art in the "has daily practical value to actual living thinking human beings that exist" sense. fine art absolutely belongs in the workplace, and if you don't like the art you are not wronged and the work environment is not hostile. banning fine art is not the approach to a broken society or workplace.

@meena if your argument is against the environmental impact of the energy use of cryptocurrencies, then just be against PoW cryptocurrencies *in general* and don't confuse the issue with "but my face is on the listing on OpenSea!"

@sneak @meena If you're a pacifist, complain about war in general, not that XYZ military just bombed your street.

@laurelin @meena i don't think any part of any practical/reasonable solution to anthropogenic climate change is "get humans to use less energy". i think that thinking that is folly, along the same lines of "if only all governments would stop using excel and switch to libreoffice!"

@sneak @meena I completely disagree on two points you're making here

- First, the problem of cryptocurrencies is not that they are merely wasteful. Most CC systems require the destruction of something (storage, energy, etc.) in order to "create" wealth. In a system that demands the growth of wealth, this means throwing away an ever increasing amount of resources, which is unsustainable regardless of whether or not what we do currently can be sustainable.

@sneak @meena Secondly, and this is the real point that I was making, is that you can have a very real issue with a wider topic, and at the same time have a particular issue with how it impacts you personally.

@sneak if it was more profitable to have an actual, functioning Crypto Currency, rather than a Ponzi Scheme Scam, any reputable crypto currency, such as Ethereum bills itself to be, would have switched to Proof of Stake already.

@meena that doesn't even logically follow. the idea that the difference between PoS or PoW is what enables or does not enable a ponzi scheme? do you know anything about blockchains? what am i missing here?