Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Gibson lost and the other thread was closed. But she just gave an interview to Politico and is framing this as a revenge porn situation. I voted for her, but didn't she willingly film herself on a porn site? I'm surprised that fact got scrubbed from this article:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/09/susanna-gibson-virginia-digital-privacy-00130883

She did but the political slut shaming was disgusting and she was robbed of control of her own narrative. But conservatives are revolting, disgusting shit stains on society so it’s sort of par for the course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

She did not put it on the other website for public viewing. Some a$$wipe did that. AFTER she entered the race. Very telling.

She operated a chat room on a chaturbate which is a public website.

There are people who then archive all those public chats in real time (a quick search suggest “archivebate” is one if you want to take a look). She was not singled out for archiving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

She did not put it on the other website for public viewing. Some a$$wipe did that. AFTER she entered the race. Very telling.

Anonymous wrote:I know Gibson lost and the other thread was closed. But she just gave an interview to Politico and is framing this as a revenge porn situation. I voted for her, but didn't she willingly film herself on a porn site? I'm surprised that fact got scrubbed from this article:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/09/susanna-gibson-virginia-digital-privacy-00130883

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She intended it to be streamed in a private, adult setting.

Recording it was unethical.

Distributing the recording was unethical.

Publicizing it widely was unethical.

Sending screenshots & quotes of it to unsuspecting families in VA was unethical.

You may or may not agree with what she did, but there was a lot of other crap that happened that she is calling out.

Unethical but entirely possible given that you are publishing content to STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET. This woman and her husband are delusional if they thought this would *never* get out. Actions have consequences and this was a risk they were willing to take. The victims in all this are their kids that are surely humiliated by their actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?

Does your opinion of yourself change knowing that you are just making stuff up?

Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.

Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”

In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/11/susanna-gibson-sex-website-virginia-candidate/

Anonymous wrote:She’s putting quite a spin on it, implying it was more akin to stolen private video, when she herself disseminated it to an audience. She’s outraged it was recorded, but I doubt the terms of use of only fans would protect all of that and frankly then we are talking about copyright infiringement not revenge porn. I think she should have gone with it was a youthful indiscretion like all the cheating politicians do and just moved on, as she noted it wasn’t a huge factor for voters in the end. instead she’s turning it into this sex abuse victim thing which is insulting to actual victims and makes me think less of her. I don’t see that as empowering to other women at all.

Anonymous wrote:She intended it to be streamed in a private, adult setting.

Recording it was unethical.

Distributing the recording was unethical.

Publicizing it widely was unethical.

Sending screenshots & quotes of it to unsuspecting families in VA was unethical.

You may or may not agree with what she did, but there was a lot of other crap that happened that she is calling out.

Anonymous wrote:She intended it to be streamed in a private, adult setting.

Recording it was unethical.

Distributing the recording was unethical.

Publicizing it widely was unethical.

Sending screenshots & quotes of it to unsuspecting families in VA was unethical.

You may or may not agree with what she did, but there was a lot of other crap that happened that she is calling out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so odd that she suggests that a majority of millennial women have taken nude photos of any sort. Perhaps I'm just an unlucky guy.

There’s a big difference between talking a risky photo and sending it JUST to your long term partner, and performing live streamed sex acts for the public for $$$. If you and your partner break up and your ex leaks your private nudes, that’s revenge porn. She’s trying to muddy the waters by claiming having sex on live video chat accessible to Lord only knows who and then having the recordings leaked later is also revenge porn. It’s silly.

You are showing your age by using "risky".

I'm 38 and have probably two dozen pics of naked exes. I honestly can't think of a woman I've slept with that I don't have pic of. This is the norm.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget how her privilege allowed her to voluntarily participate in distributing pornography, quit, and then claim victimhood. Thousands of women do not have that option as they are trafficked and forced into the sex industry. They are the true victims, not her. It’s vile she continues with this line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would my husband need a picture of me naked when he can just come home and see me naked in person?

Maybe he wants to look at you naked when you're not around. If that bothers you, don't take any, and make sure you let him know it bothers you so that he doesn't take any of you in case he does "need" a picture of you naked for some reason.

I think it's pretty horrific how many of you seem to think that posting videos on OF means that the videos are fair game for anyone. That is not how privacy works. That's not even how capitalism works. It is, however, how revenge porn works. I don't understand why anyone disagrees with that characterization of the issue. Publicly outing someone's non-public pornography without their consent in order to damage them in some way is basically the definition of revenge porn. How is that not exactly what happened here?

Not even a good troll. The second she clicked "upload" she forfeited all rights to privacy. It's no different than posting flyers on a telephone pole.

Did she post the content publicly, or did the place she posted the videos require a subscription, a login, payment, etc.? It's pretty different than posting flyers on a telephone pole, in mechanics, intent, payment structure, etc.

I'm not sure why you're calling me a troll, truly.

No subscription login payment is required. It’s completely open. Pornographers like her perform sexual acts for whoever wants to watch and people toss money at her if they want.

You clearly don't understand how OnlyFans works. That is where she posted the videos consensually. That business model is a subscription service. People subscribe to specific content creators. It's not PornHub.

Does your opinion of the situation change now that you are aware that these were NOT uploaded for public viewing?

Is your opinion entirely based on your feelings about what the content was and not on the mechanics of the issue?