Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   Naked self-destructing sexts could be what finally kills Google. No, Seriously   (bgr.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Google, Farhad Manjoo, Snapchat, Wall Street Journal  
•       •       •

5493 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Dec 2013 at 12:41 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-12-23 12:50:16 PM  
Maybe the NSAcan help out by storing all those temporary texts?
 
2013-12-23 12:51:24 PM  
If your child has snapchat and you don't whip their ass then you're a failure as a parent
 
2013-12-23 01:04:47 PM  
LOL
You really think that stupid people will be less stupid if we change google and facebook?
ROFL

The best part of this feature is that we get to find out who the stupid people (and bigots) are faster and faster. I LOVE thhat we can google a politician and get all of the retarded things that they have said, all of the questionable people that they have met with.

The truth sets us free. Or at least closer to free. Sort of.
 
2013-12-23 01:13:17 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: If your child has snapchat and you don't whip their ass then you're a failure as a parent


That.  I have spent hours discussing the absolute permanence of anything going on the internet with my kids.
 
2013-12-23 01:15:51 PM  
It's not a binary choice. We can have an internet where some information is quasi-permanent, and other information is ephemeral.
 
2013-12-23 01:17:29 PM  
Snapchats are saved every day, there are sites and a subreddit devoted to that very point.

Just assume anything you send or post is permanent so either don't use your face or real name.
 
2013-12-23 01:21:35 PM  
Businessweek published a much better article about Snapchat back in February.
 
2013-12-23 01:26:42 PM  
A friend of mine tried to get me to join Snapchat.  I didn't care to join up for yet another useless service.  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?
 
2013-12-23 01:28:52 PM  

steamingpile: Snapchats are saved every day, there are sites and a subreddit devoted to that very point.

Just assume anything you send or post is permanent so either don't use your face or real name.


And the moment you think you've found a way to make them fleeting and self-destructing, the people will rise up, and find a way around it, and develop an app for it, and charge 99 cents for you to download the app, and laugh and laugh and eat all the cookies!
 
2013-12-23 01:35:23 PM  
Do we want an erasable Internet?

Lulz.
 
2013-12-23 01:36:01 PM  
Just because the front end appears to be temporary doesn't mean the back end is. This writing person appears to be an moran.
 
2013-12-23 01:50:12 PM  
Dartboard writing at it's finest.
 
2013-12-23 02:17:51 PM  
If it can be rendered on my hardware at all you can't erase it unless I want you to. End of story, no exceptions. Ever.

This is why computer professionals have done such a disservice to the rest of the world by taking all responsibility for using and managing computer services from end users. They wind up believing in stupid shiat like Snapchat because they still have no idea how computers work.

/ can't wait for the inevitable deluge of "whoa, wait, turns out this snapchat thing isn't bulletproof after all!" hand wringing articles in a few months...
 
2013-12-23 02:37:48 PM  

skozlaw: If it can be rendered on my hardware at all you can't erase it unless I want you to. End of story, no exceptions. Ever.


HA! My memory is encrypted through seven proxies on the south bridge, n00b. Good luck hacking my secured mainframe, Acid_Burn!

YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME
 
2013-12-23 02:51:47 PM  
I can't wait until people realize Snapchat is a money pit or Snapchat tries to start charging or someone just does the same crap or some combo of all three.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-23 02:56:16 PM  
In a nutshell, Snapchat is the polar opposite of Google and Facebook. Your data isn't saved and used to sell ads - it is erased almost immediately,

No, it's erased if the app on your phone that received it erases it. If you can write an app that pretends to be the snapchat app, you don't have to save it. And I'm sure that right now there are people running fake Snapchat apps and grabbing images of unsuspecting girlfriends.

and once the world figures this out, Snapchat is toast.
 
2013-12-23 03:04:15 PM  
Q? Any farker got those original 2 babes in a pool nekkid fotos?  I need to do some research... yeah, for science!
 
2013-12-23 03:05:43 PM  

Swampmaster: Q? Any farker got those original 2 babes in a pool nekkid fotos?  I need to do some research... yeah, for science!


Here you go.

snarkerati.com
 
2013-12-23 03:11:22 PM  

NightSteel:  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?


That's what I am assuming.
 
2013-12-23 03:13:06 PM  
Kill Google?

i1284.photobucket.com
No Wizard hat for you, subby.
 
2013-12-23 03:14:01 PM  
http://snapchatpictures.com/main/page/575/
(NSFW)

You have to wonder:
how many of these photos were posted by the women who own them? probably close to nil
how many of these photos were taken with snapchat? probably a very low percentage ...

still
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

AND, to the assholes posting them. STOP RUINING IT for the rest of us?!
 
2013-12-23 03:17:10 PM  
Started to take the article seriously until I read that Farhad Manjoo was the one positing the theory.  He hasn't been right about anything much, so Google has nothing to worry about.
 
2013-12-23 03:28:56 PM  
I look forward to the day when people realize that *everyone* says stupid stuff, and that just because we can read about it all now doesn't suddenly mean that the person who said it is a "bad person", stupid, or was even really being completely serious when they said it.

 Celebrities, politicians, talking heads on tv....ALL of them are no different than the group of friends/acquaintances you keep. Some are good people, some are assholes, some just like spewing random shiat to cause a stir, others have a horrible tendency to get "foot in mouth" because they don't think very quickly on their feet when they reply to something.

 Expecting these guys to be perfect *all* of the time, since there are cameras and texting *everywhere* now, is disingenuous.

 How stupid/assholey would most of us look if every single text, tweet, facebook post, glance, and casual remark were nitpicked by the entire world? Pretty damn lousy right?

 If we're going to nitpick. Let's nitpick the prepared statements. Those are ones that are supposed to be carefully thought through and comply with societal expectations.


 To get back to the article. Sounds like the writer is desperately trying to come up with a story from nothing.
 
2013-12-23 04:00:10 PM  
Like I was literally one of the first people to use Snapchat so I should know its going to destroy Google, all you people are just farking jealous of how I know these things before you.
 
2013-12-23 04:04:19 PM  

This Looks Fun: NightSteel:  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?

That's what I am assuming.


To be fair... it tells you that a screenshot was taken...
 
2013-12-23 04:10:24 PM  

Grapple: This Looks Fun: NightSteel:  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?

That's what I am assuming.

To be fair... it tells you that a screenshot was taken...


...if it can detect that a screenshot was taken.  Which on a rooted/jailbroken phone would be easy to evade.
 
2013-12-23 04:10:57 PM  

Grapple: To be fair... it tells you that a screenshot was taken...


"Your naked selfie, which you thought would vanish, has been screenshotted.  But hey, at least you know about it."

And that's assuming the recipient didn't use one of the many methods there seem to be for saving snaps without notification.

Yeah.. no thanks.
 
2013-12-23 04:14:51 PM  

Grapple: This Looks Fun: NightSteel:  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?

That's what I am assuming.

To be fair... it tells you that a screenshot was taken...


Ok, I looked up on wiki. Looks like you're right:

"During the viewing period, the recipient must maintain contact with the device's touchscreen, thereby hindering the user's ability to take a screenshot, which is allowed. The sender is also notified by Snapshot if a recipient takes a screenshot. However, it is possible for the user to bypass this mechanism by, for example, taking a picture of the phone with another camera, or by disabling the notification function through a modification of the Snapchat binary; furthermore, running the Snapchat application in an emulator will bypass all restrictions."
 
2013-12-23 05:02:31 PM  

cuzsis: I look forward to the day when people realize that *everyone* says stupid stuff, and that just because we can read about it all now doesn't suddenly mean that the person who said it is a "bad person", stupid, or was even really being completely serious when they said it.


Nope.  It does not work that way for politicians.  We will continue to see them saying one thing at the podium and then just the opposite when they think they're off-mike, and the public needs to know who and what they're really voting for or against.
 
2013-12-23 05:18:20 PM  
I suspect I'm not the only one who uses Google and Facebook because I want a permanent record of my attention whoring.
 
2013-12-23 06:00:57 PM  
namatad:
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

Someone
on the internet that I don't even know sees ME naked?!  Oh NOES!!  I am so damaged by this somehow!  Never mind that this does not actual, tangible harm to me - I AM A VICTIM.

Honestly if you actually care about someone seeing your naked picture (and there is no logical reason to care about this) then I might advise you to not take a naked picture.
 
2013-12-23 06:18:51 PM  
Every "new" internet "technology" is indistinguishable from ftp.
 
2013-12-23 06:38:26 PM  

bk3k: Never mind that this does not actual, tangible harm to me


Except for those documented instances where people have been denied jobs over things like that. Or kicked out of churches and other social groups. Or stalked by random lunatics who saw their pictures online and hunted them down.

But let's not let facts get in the way of reality or anything.
 
2013-12-23 06:38:54 PM  

poot_rootbeer: It's not a binary choice. We can have an internet where some information is quasi-permanent, and other information is ephemeral.


That's a lot of smart sounding words there. Could you dumb it down for my...um...friend?
 
2013-12-23 07:15:57 PM  

anfrind: Grapple: This Looks Fun: NightSteel:  Isn't the supposedly self-destructing image able to be captured with a simple screenshot, anyway?

That's what I am assuming.

To be fair... it tells you that a screenshot was taken...

...if it can detect that a screenshot was taken.  Which on a rooted/jailbroken phone would be easy to evade.


The app doesn't even delete the files, it just changes the extension to hide them.There are apps on the marketplace right now that allows you access and save the pictures before you ever view them in snapchat.
 
2013-12-23 07:23:01 PM  

TwoHead: Just because the front end appears to be temporary doesn't mean the back end is. This writing person appears to be an moran.


This.

No one codes a DELETE statement into any SQL architecture. Nothing is ever deleted. It may be flagged to be hidden from public view, but it's still in the database somewhere.
 
2013-12-23 07:23:52 PM  

skozlaw: bk3k: Never mind that this does not actual, tangible harm to me

Except for those documented instances where people have been denied jobs over things like that. Or kicked out of churches and other social groups. Or stalked by random lunatics who saw their pictures online and hunted them down.

But let's not let facts get in the way of reality or anything.


Facts you say LOL.  I think you are under the impression that correlation implies causation.  I say this because you believe the positing of these pictures itself caused the harm.  Most of these are just pictures of people simply being naked - not doing anything illegal nor even slightly harmful.  You used examples of people reacting with bigotry, zealotry, and/or insanity to those pictures and in no case are you talking about rational reactions.  Cut short - these are some examples of how PEOPLE CHOOSE TO REACT to these pictures.

The pictures of people doing nothing other than being partially/totally naked do not themselves cause any harm.  Nor does someone simply seeing them itself do harm.  It is these people's irrational reactions that do all the harm but that remains the choice of those people not the producer nor distributor of the picture.  My point remains unscathed.

No you can't control what irrational reactions people may have to pictures - nor ANYTHING ELSE far beyond pictures.  People can have irrational reactions to literally anything.  So you seem to lack any points in the "harm done" category.

If you don't get this, imagine something else.  A loan officer at a bank hates all Asians.  So he/she denies a loan to a customer solely on the basis of that customer being of Japanese descent.  This loan officer found out about the customer's nationality when another employee remarked that she was a "cute Japanese girl."  Tell me who has done the harm here.  Do you REALLY place blame the employee who made that remark?  Or do you blame the bigoted loan officer who chose to make an irrational and harmful decision?

And before you go splitting hairs on how completely different that scenario is - it is more similar than you may realize.  There is nothing wrong nor harmful in being naked, taking pictures of yourself, nor sending those pictures to someone else (assuming they are of legal age to receive etc).  So if a person was punished for doing these things... that is not reasonable.  It is bigoted behavior.  The reason for a person's bigotry could be a "moral" belief just as easily as it could be a racist/nationalist/jingoist belief.  The exact reason for a person's bigotry is every bit as relevant as the spark that set off the gasoline spilled all over the ground.
 
2013-12-23 07:44:55 PM  

RyansPrivates: Started to take the article seriously until I read that Farhad Manjoo was the one positing the theory.  He hasn't been right about anything much, so Google has nothing to worry about.


When he wrote articles for Slate.com, commenters would tear his arguments apart because for a columnist who's supposed to be tech savvy, he writes a lot of things that don't make sense. Manjoo going from Slate to the WSJ is proof that talent isn't everything. He's sometimes interesting but more often than not he writes like he's new to technology, not as someone who's above average in his knowledge and experience.
 
2013-12-23 07:54:01 PM  

skinink: RyansPrivates: Started to take the article seriously until I read that Farhad Manjoo was the one positing the theory.  He hasn't been right about anything much, so Google has nothing to worry about.

When he wrote articles for Slate.com, commenters would tear his arguments apart because for a columnist who's supposed to be tech savvy, he writes a lot of things that don't make sense. Manjoo going from Slate to the WSJ is proof that talent isn't everything. He's sometimes interesting but more often than not he writes like he's new to technology, not as someone who's above average in his knowledge and experience.


Exactly my experience with his columns at slate (I am really trying not use the names people used to call him over there.)
 
2013-12-23 08:01:09 PM  
Title of TFA: "This could be what finally kills Google"

1.) No, it won't be.
2.) Why does something need to "finally" kill Google, exactly?
 
2013-12-23 08:11:41 PM  

Ecliptic: Title of TFA: "This could be what finally kills Google"

1.) No, it won't be.
2.) Why does something need to "finally" kill Google, exactly?


1.) Correct
2.) To avenge GIS
 
2013-12-23 08:18:13 PM  

bk3k: namatad:
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

Someone on the internet that I don't even know sees ME naked?!  Oh NOES!!  I am so damaged by this somehow!  Never mind that this does not actual, tangible harm to me - I AM A VICTIM.

Honestly if you actually care about someone seeing your naked picture (and there is no logical reason to care about this) then I might advise you to not take a naked picture.


Agreed.
And if you got GUILTED into it by your boyfriend, DID you really trust him to do the right thing?
 
2013-12-23 08:51:01 PM  
Everything gone through teh interwebs is in ink.
 
2013-12-23 08:51:23 PM  

namatad: http://snapchatpictures.com/main/page/575/
(NSFW)

You have to wonder:
how many of these photos were posted by the women who own them? probably close to nil
how many of these photos were taken with snapchat? probably a very low percentage ...

still
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

AND, to the assholes posting them. STOP RUINING IT for the rest of us?!


Thank you for the link. I'd shake your hand, but one hand is on my dick and the other is on the keyboard / mouse
 
2013-12-23 08:59:47 PM  
Had an ex threaten to put pics of me me all over the internet. Told her thanks and that I could use the free advertising. I didn't have any political aspirations anyway.
 
2013-12-23 09:50:38 PM  
Maybe this is how we get over our puritanical sensibilities about nudity. Absolute desensitization due to massive overload of imagery.
 
2013-12-23 10:46:31 PM  
Any method to produce more whores is welcome.
 
2013-12-24 02:12:07 AM  
Google.  Snapchat.  These are 2 different things, article.  one has very little to do with threatening the death of the other.
 
2013-12-24 02:17:07 AM  

namatad: http://snapchatpictures.com/main/page/575/
(NSFW)

You have to wonder:
how many of these photos were posted by the women who own them? probably close to nil
how many of these photos were taken with snapchat? probably a very low percentage ...

still
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

AND, to the assholes posting them. STOP RUINING IT for the rest of us?!


namatad: http://snapchatpictures.com/main/page/575/
(NSFW)

You have to wonder:
how many of these photos were posted by the women who own them? probably close to nil
how many of these photos were taken with snapchat? probably a very low percentage ...

still
HOW many of these women know that their photos are online now?
Poor things.

AND, to the assholes posting them. STOP RUINING IT for the rest of us?!


DUDE! Some of those dont exactly look legal.  I had no intention of looking at that.  thank you, for putting me on an NSA list.
 
2013-12-24 12:06:31 PM  

bk3k: derp.


You said "no tangible harm" is caused by pictures of a sexual nature being made available to the public on the internet. You are wrong. End of story.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report