Puck Beaverton
Banned
Kinda messed up. Also agree on that post being dumb as fuck.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Netflix Hot Girls Wanted series exploits sex workers while exposin how they're expltd
- Thread starter Ran rp
- Start date
- Status
lol @ yall who can't understand the bubble of being recognized only on myfreecams versus a whole ass netflix series.
People can do online sex work and keep it relatively separate from their personal life. I mean, think about it. When's the last time you saw a porn star you recognized?
People can do online sex work and keep it relatively separate from their personal life. I mean, think about it. When's the last time you saw a porn star you recognized?
*starts sweating profusely*
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Alot of people think my post was stupid, cool.
Clearly Im in the minority here. I do think if your online doing cam shows you should at least expect that your gonna get outed eventually.
Sure what Netflix did was shady and maybe illegal. I'm still of the opinion that, again, if showing your ass on webcams, it's a possibility that your family may find out about it one way or the other.
If I was really concerned about my family seeing my dick and me jerking off, the last thing I would do is get on a webcam with a stranger and flash my dick for money. Someones gonna record it, or whatever, it's gonna end up elsewhere, and yeah there's a small possibility someone I know may find out someday.
These are the breaks. Don't want your family knowing your a sex worker? Maybe don't be a sex worker.
Clearly Im in the minority here. I do think if your online doing cam shows you should at least expect that your gonna get outed eventually.
Sure what Netflix did was shady and maybe illegal. I'm still of the opinion that, again, if showing your ass on webcams, it's a possibility that your family may find out about it one way or the other.
If I was really concerned about my family seeing my dick and me jerking off, the last thing I would do is get on a webcam with a stranger and flash my dick for money. Someones gonna record it, or whatever, it's gonna end up elsewhere, and yeah there's a small possibility someone I know may find out someday.
These are the breaks. Don't want your family knowing your a sex worker? Maybe don't be a sex worker.
It's really unfortunate and not thought trough on Netflix's part. Especially because it a great watch. Kinda feels like porn Black Mirror dialed back a bit. Also a Gaffer is undoubtely the main focus in episode five. Actually, i haven't cringed so hard since the cringe thread. Urrrgghh.
Well...
metalslimer
Member
I can understand the fair use argument but they really should have been more proactive in getting permission
BlitzEngineer
Member
Let me ask you this. If Netflix had outted the identity of ANYONE else who wanted to remain anonymous for ANY reason, would you be saying the same thing? Let's say hypothetically they outted some big youtuber or something as being transgender, or gay or something without their permission. Would your response be "If you don't want people to know who you are, don't go on the internet."
I seriously doubt it. Which means the detail that sets this situation apart is simply the work these girls are doing. In other words, you feel like they deserve it because they're dirty sex workers.
It's bullshit, man. NOBODY who wishes to remain anonymous for ANY reason deserves to be doxxed by ANYONE, let alone a streaming platform with millions of users. The fact that they do the work they do is completely fucking irrelevant.
So maybe don't be an asshole, huh?
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I never said they deserved it. I'm saying if you put yourself in a situation where a result is even possible, well that result may just happen. In this case it did.
I never said Netflix weren't wrong or that the girls deserve it. Maybe you read my post as that, but that's not what I said.
And being gay or transgendered is in no way the same as being a cam girl. Come on man
this is not the rhetoric you want to be using when it comes to women and sex
JoeyJungle
Banned
Difference between "Someone might find me on chaturbate or pornhub" and "someone just found me in a heavily promoted netflix film that I never agreed to be in". They coulda just used videos they had permission for or blurred out faces of people they didn't ask permission for.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
So now I'm justifying sexual assault or rape? If that's what your implying, well that's just fucking stupid.
Man you guys are so quick to want to point out how wrong I am there's leaps in logic going on that could clear a square block.
old manatee
Banned
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Jesus Christ dude you are completely deaf with what you're saying.
I didn't say that what's you're justifying. I'm saying the rhetoric is dangerous
Not that I agree with him, but "you reap what you sow" as a phrase is not saying they deserved it. That's not what that phrase means.
CrimsonSquall
Member
In other words: They wanted maximum exposure from pervs and simps to drain their bank account, not from normies that would frown upon them.
BlitzEngineer
Member
His point is you are using the exact same line of thinking, and it sucks.
Sounds dangerously like "Don't want to be assaulted? Don't go out alone/Don't dress like a slut/Don't be promiscuous/ect."
You honestly don't realize that these phrases make you sound like they deserve the invasion of their privacy? Because that's what you sound like.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I mean, if you are putting stuff out in public, don't get mad it's public?
If you are ashamed of it being out there, don't do it.
Curious what's true about the real names, etc.
If you are ashamed of it being out there, don't do it.
Curious what's true about the real names, etc.
TheSadRanger
Banned
Hasn't Rashida Jones been running the media circuit lately? I wonder if Maher is gonna let this slide if she shows up on real time.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
Don't show your ass if you don't want me touching it.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I mean, how's it an invasion of privacy if the thing wasn't private to begin with?
Think about that.
Brian Griffin
Member
Well shit.
This is a pretty amazing fuck up. I still want to watch the show because the topic is interesting but god damn.
Is there any indication that they did this on purpose because of Jone's animosity towards women in this line of work? They would be extra shitty.
The VAST majority of people do not frequent cam sites and thus, cam workers are relatively safe from the public at large knowing what they do. They don't use their real names so unless someone visually recognizes them and then takes the extra step of informing everyone they know they are pretty private. This show has taken up a bullhorn and announced to millions of people the real names and performance names of these women thus vastly increasing the chance their family and friends will be made aware of what they do when they previously may have not known or would ever know.
Vincent Alexander
Member
I dunno...I have shit publicly on Facebook, with as many private settings as possible so only my friends can see anything. And one time one of them took a picture of me and my family and shared it on their page...pissed me off. I should have control over my shit, publicly or not. I deleted my Facebook. Might be overreaction, but I am a private person. I was able to choose my friends, my audience if you will. Just like these camgirls could (though not to such a degree). The moment this show exposed them, and their real names which is really what is fucked up, they stepped over a line.
Nah. I read each of the links and she doesn't seem as bad as it might immediatley come off. She just likes to put her foot in her mouth and say dumb shit here and there, but she wouldn't do this with malicious intent. I think she was either too ignorant to think about it, or she did think about it and was too ignorant to realize the difference between the camgirl's audience and a Netflix audience.Well shit.
This is a pretty amazing fuck up. I still want to watch the show because the topic is interesting but god damn.
Is there any indication that they did this on purpose because of Jone's animosity towards women in this line of work? They would be extra shitty.
BlitzEngineer
Member
Why are you people rushing to defend the actions of a huge ass media company doxxing people who want no part of the attention? It's staggering, honestly.
If I use a pseudonym, and limit my persona to a limited social circle behind a paywall, it means I want to remain anonymous. By outting their real names, attaching it to their pseudonyms, and showing their performances outside of that closed social circle, Netflix has violated their privacy. I don't give a shit if it's "fair use". I'm not a lawyer. I'm human and I can see how these womens lives are being negatively effected by a huge media company who is using their work for shock value.
But they deserved it because they choose to get naked on the internet. What dirty people they are, and what a high moral horse I sit on.
Maybe one day some of you people will have your privacy violated and you'll learn some fucking sympathy.
Vincent Alexander
Member
This is the most important piece. If they simply showed the girls on Netflix, I would still be against the decision, but at least understand it. Doing all of this on Netflix, revealing their names, and attaching to their online names is where the line is lept over by a mile.
meltingparappa
Member
I once made an off-color joke in a restaurant, at the expense of a friend we were celebrating, who we deeply love for decades with an unquestionable affection that is thicker than we share for most of our family members.
Because it was within earshot of other people in public, is it morally ok if every screensaver in my workplace is changed to that quote out of context, against my prior knowledge or consent, as ammunition for an ideological argument against my livelihood that I strongly disagree with?
To say nothing about maintaining a bare minimum of safety.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
There wouldn't be an argument if these people weren't cam girls, who are generally viewed as degenerates.
Your tag is good.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Yep, but I don't think because people would see them in a more favorable light and therefore want to defend them. Being exposed is specifically an issue because this country has a high population of...I don't even know what word (prudes? Assholes?)...who see the cam girls lives as being dirty/sinful/whoreish, which is exactly why they need their identities hidden.
What I don't get, did none of that girls sign up for being on the documentary?
Is this not like the original doc where they followed and interviewed the girls?
You reap what you sow means that the things you plant lead to the things you harvest.
I.e. you wear them short shorts, you gone get it. I suppose it's not literally a judgement that you "deserved" it but more a "what did you expect to happen?" but they are kissing cousins.
Still a pretty gross way to view the situation.
LizardKing
Member
I mean it was pretty scummy to do that but absolutely fair use. If they were ruled not allowed to do that the repercussions would be devastating.
hodayathink
Member
No. This was HGW pulling random cam footage off the net and using it without ever contacting the people in said footage.
RedAssedApe
Banned
Anyone know what episode this is? Tweet in the article seems to indicate 6 but so far that one has been all about the periscope rape.
Is it episode 5? Summary seems to be about a cam girl.
Is it episode 5? Summary seems to be about a cam girl.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yeah, Netflix fucked up. They literally either are going to get in the shit for doxxing people, or they're going to have a show that no one wants to watch because it's a show about exploited sex workers that exploits sex workers.
Your association with your stream is private.
Also, to clarify, do you believe all things online are fair game for any kind of use?
They revealed information about the sex workers and put their safety and livelihood at risk for entertainment.
Your association with your stream is private.
Also, to clarify, do you believe all things online are fair game for any kind of use?
They revealed information about the sex workers and put their safety and livelihood at risk for entertainment.
jack_package_200
Banned
Thats pretty clever.
The better ones go far beyond that and let Models actively block whole countries or any number of states they may wish not see them. Not simply just the area where they may reside.
Even then, just because there is something on the internet doesn't mean it's completely in the public sphere. There are big Youtubers with tens and even hundreds of thousands or more subscribers who's friends and family have no idea they have such careers. The internet is a big place and even when broadcasting yourself out there like that you can often still remain pretty far under the radar.
This is especially important for a lot of Models as many, if not most, are no full time models and have normal careers and jobs. Plus being a Model isn't something they can do their whole lives or may not want to and so they will likely want to and need to seek other employment in the future. So being in as much control of their exposure is important.
Outing people like this is not only very embarrassing due to friends and family and acquaintances, it's likely just extra money on the side so it can jeopardize their careers or fields they're looking to get into.
And there's also the potential safety risk and harassment or exploitation that revealing their identities could bring.
Hiding behind "it's fair use" is just being an asshole.
And there's also the potential safety risk and harassment or exploitation that revealing their identities could bring.
Hiding behind "it's fair use" is just being an asshole.
……forgetit
Member
Nothing illegal was done more than likely, but real bad form on Netflix and on the production team. Journalistically​ this is super unethical
They could have blurred faces or something
They could have blurred faces or something
SciencePilot
Member
Using those videos may have been legal, but it's definitely unethical. Why couldn't they have just asked first? It would have been the considerate thing to do.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Well you showed your ass to everyone in this thread.
Yeah, this is completely unacceptable and I'd probably go so far as to say Netflix should pull the episode and demand it's re-cut with footage that either obscures the identity (and no real names attached) of the girls, or only use footage from people who have agreed to appear.
I originally was reading the thread thinking they'd gone off and obtained footage of interviewees without clearing it with them, which would be one side of the issue, but the reality is considerably worse.
I did and they are actually 2 separate things
1) Gia Paige, who agreed to be in the documentary and signed a release, is upset because she later asked them not to use her footage and they did anyway in an episode about her boyfriend. They show a facebook photo of them together that includes her first name. She says they did this out of spite because she wouldn't cooperate when they wanted to discuss her family
2) The other two women appeared together in a periscope video and HGW used a clip of it in a montage about internet videos. The clip shows one of them saying something random to the camera and the other is in a leotard or something and sort-of shaking her butt? This episode is not about sex work and it isn't implied that they are performing for money (or doing anything explicit). The episode is about the girl who periscoped her friend being raped, so It has a couple of montages about the kind of videos people post online in general. The montages show everything from that guy getting kicked in the head by the train conductor, to some topless woman getting beat up in the streets. I would assume they didn't get permission for any of them as that is pretty normal.
edit: To be clear, the show doesn't say anything at all about the 2 periscope girls or their identities (fake or real)
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Are these montages of 3-5 second fast cuts?
If the goal of the documentary is to humanize the porn industry (I have not seen it), blurred faces ruins the directorial intent.
If no particular importance was placed on the footage of the performers by the film, and the footage that was used was already put out publicly and freely available, I don't see how the women could claim their privacy has been unduly breached. It puts them at a greater risk of being recognised, obviously, but clearly that was an outcome they were already comfortable with on some level.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked