Comment by zankly

6 years ago

I feel that this is a violation of trust. A lot of users are there to talk to another person, they're not necessarily ready or willing to be shirtless in front of tens of thousands of people. If I was on a jury and there was a lawsuit, I would award damages.

8 comments

zankly

Reply
domador  6 years ago

Isn't showing up shirtless to a video chat with a stranger a huge violation of trust in itself? I'd be much more inclined to consider "shirtlessness" (to give this phenomenon a short name) to be a sign of aggression, rather than of innocence and of trust in others.

lopmotr  6 years ago

They're clearly OK with exposing themselves to strangers because that's the reason they're doing it. How does the number of strangers matter? If they were shy, they could have put their shirt on before going out in public.

stale2002  6 years ago

The other stranger did not consent to being situation where the rando was shirtless, though.

Them being shirtless without telling the other person in advance, is harm that theyd be causing in the first place.

  • tasogare  6 years ago

    Consent was given implicitly by browsing chatroulette. Or so is the mainstream rhetoric used for third party cookies "consent".

    • metamet  6 years ago

      By that logic, consent was given to be shown on a projector at a concert by showing yourself on Chatroulette.