Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Facetune - what am I looking at here?


Recommended Posts

 

Quote

She is using apps that change your shape & appearance. And yes - you can change your appearance this much. Thats why social media giants want altered images to be marked as such as poor kids think these people exist when they are just as fake as a cartoon.

 

Quote

To everyone who is confused: there is now a FaceTune app for videos. It will scan your body and alter it in the vid. They just recently released it.

 

This person...

32678690-8688721-image-m-12_159903028177

 

Is allegedly this person with the photos only a few hours apart.

32678572-8688721-Glam_Aubrey_O_Day_posed

 

32629538-8688721-This_is_me_Aubrey_share

 

Aubrey O'Day poses in skimpy purple swimsuit for heavily filtered video ... after looking unrecognizable in Palm Springs

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8688721/Aubrey-ODay-poses-skimpy-swimsuit-heavily-filtered-video.html#comments

Quote

 

Aubrey O'Day took to Twitter on Wednesday to pose in a high-leg purple swimsuit for a new video. 

The post comes after the Danity Kane alum, 36, stepped out looking remarkably different as she took a walk in Palm Springs on Sunday. 

Aubrey had a heavy filter applied to her video, which applied a flower garland to her head, heavy make-up and speckles of light to the appearance of the clip. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sarahbell said:

That's not a filter that's just plain fucking lies! 

 

There are lots of videos on youtube showing various real life 'influencers' of instagram versus the photos they stick up on instagram and other social media. The social media perfect faces and bodies are in such sharp contrast to the real looks of many that I it is hard to believe they are the same people.

Yep, you're right. It is no longer making a leg longer or boobs bigger... or getting rid of a blemish... it is making people look like someone else entirely. Shrinks would have a field day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess she's just making a living selling a fantasy to men/women who enjoy the "world" she has created.

The fact that the fantasy has no basis in reality seems largely irrelevant to me..   who was ever going to meet her in real life anyway ?

It seems like the modern equivalent of "sexy phone chat lines" of the 70s/80s where the lady in the swimming costume in the picture was in reality just fat Sharon from the estate.

Or "Womens Life" magazines..    look how Abi keeps fit with her 10 golden rules..     where Abi was photo shopped to impossibly attractive.

It's all bollocks..  and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably happier in their fantasy land anyway..  why not just leave them there O.o

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That's just silly.

Unless you're never going to meet anybody in RL to whom you're presenting that image and they will never see a genuine image of yourself why would you do that?  You're going to be caught out.

But isn't this the world of Facebook influencers chasing the digital dollar ?

Create a channel..  get a million subscribers..  eek out a semi profitable existence.    I think this is a bit beyond basic family friendly social media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That's just silly.

Unless you're never going to meet anybody in RL to whom you're presenting that image and they will never see a genuine image of yourself why would you do that?  You're going to be caught out.

Indeed.

Which is why my pictures can be trusted.

You may not want to see my arse, but what you will see is my arse - warts and all.

In a world full of fakery, it's reassuring to know that you can still have faith in the XYY brand...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Libspero said:

But isn't this the world of Facebook influencers chasing the digital dollar ?

Create a channel..  get a million subscribers..  eek out a semi profitable existence.    I think this is a bit beyond basic family friendly social media.

 

I was reading about "Only fans" the other day.  This is a platform where people, meaning men, pay £10 or £20 a month to subscribe to a particular person, meaning a woman, who will then post up titillating pictures every week or so.

Some actress called IIRC Bella Thorne is making $1m per month from it.

This in a time when if you wished you could watch 12hrs of porn every day for the next twenty years without watching the same thing twice.  For free.

Yet men are willingly paying money to see a topless photo from somebody who would avoid them if they approached them in the street.

Maybe they are thinking they will be the next Mr Thorne if they start paying her money now.  And I don't mean Willie.

Clown World indeed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

Indeed.

Which is why my pictures can be trusted.

You may not want to see my arse, but what you will see is my arse - warts and all.

In a world full of fakery, it's reassuring to know that you can still have faith in the XYY brand...

 

 

Maybe there Is an app called ArseTune?

I would suspect so, as the elephantine buttcheeks of the Kardashians are often portrayed as smooth, muscular and glossy but the reality must surely be like two gigantic saggy dessicated oranges.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread would be about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54003536

Quote

Influencers and advertisers should be forced to declare digitally altered photos on social media, the Girl Guides have said.
The charity has backed a proposed law by a backbench MP that would force social media users and advertisers to label images where bodies or faces have been edited.
The bill is designed to address unrealistic portrayals of beauty in the media and online.
Critics have said it is unenforceable.

That last line is everything.  It would be absolutely unenforceable; every single image on the internet has been edited in some way (these days this means digitally).  

It'll end up just like that other 'well intentioned' law -- the cookie law.  All this has meant is that every single website you visit needs to have another click on 'yes, I accept the cookies'.  It only resulted in inconvenience and didn't give anything to the consumer.  So, in this case it'll end up with every single image having 'this image has been digitally edited' in the corner, or perhaps a pop-up on every website saying 'this website contains digitally enhanced images'.  (this latter method would be preferred, but it'll just end up like the allergen warnings on food packaging -- they just shove in a 'may contain ...' to get rid of any liability, just in case.)

And in any case, there isn't any point -- everyone knows that images of beautiful people have been altered.  It is just the way it is.  It started with art through the ages, got a bit better with photography (the images are 'airbrushed', after all) and has become substantially easier with computer tech.  But it has always been there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I was reading about "Only fans" the other day.  This is a platform where people, meaning men, pay £10 or £20 a month to subscribe to a particular person, meaning a woman, who will then post up titillating pictures every week or so.

 

You're being ripped-off there mind Francis.

Mrs XYY only charges a fiver a month.

If you sign-up within the next 24 hours, you'll also receive a free pair of her soiled panties - and some pictures of her and her mother doing some pretty weird shit with Keith Chegwin and Les Dennis...

 

XYY

Edited by The XYY Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dgul said:

I thought this thread would be about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54003536

That last line is everything.  It would be absolutely unenforceable; every single image on the internet has been edited in some way (these days this means digitally).  

It'll end up just like that other 'well intentioned' law -- the cookie law.  All this has meant is that every single website you visit needs to have another click on 'yes, I accept the cookies'.  It only resulted in inconvenience and didn't give anything to the consumer.  So, in this case it'll end up with every single image having 'this image has been digitally edited' in the corner, or perhaps a pop-up on every website saying 'this website contains digitally enhanced images'.  (this latter method would be preferred, but it'll just end up like the allergen warnings on food packaging -- they just shove in a 'may contain ...' to get rid of any liability, just in case.)

And in any case, there isn't any point -- everyone knows that images of beautiful people have been altered.  It is just the way it is.  It started with art through the ages, got a bit better with photography (the images are 'airbrushed', after all) and has become substantially easier with computer tech.  But it has always been there.

 

It more of the generations who need their hands held in case the big bad world hurts them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dgul said:

I thought this thread would be about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54003536

That last line is everything.  It would be absolutely unenforceable; every single image on the internet has been edited in some way (these days this means digitally).  

It'll end up just like that other 'well intentioned' law -- the cookie law.  All this has meant is that every single website you visit needs to have another click on 'yes, I accept the cookies'.  It only resulted in inconvenience and didn't give anything to the consumer.  So, in this case it'll end up with every single image having 'this image has been digitally edited' in the corner, or perhaps a pop-up on every website saying 'this website contains digitally enhanced images'.  (this latter method would be preferred, but it'll just end up like the allergen warnings on food packaging -- they just shove in a 'may contain ...' to get rid of any liability, just in case.)

And in any case, there isn't any point -- everyone knows that images of beautiful people have been altered.  It is just the way it is.  It started with art through the ages, got a bit better with photography (the images are 'airbrushed', after all) and has become substantially easier with computer tech.  But it has always been there.

That raises another question. Why on earth are the Girl Guides getting involved in stuff like this? They are a youth organisation mainly involved with camping and woodcraft and should stick to that. It's like the RNLI campaigning to teach burkha women to swim. It's got nothing to do with their core purpose and is 'mission creep' caused by professional administrators and PR people moving in and devouring organisations like ideological locusts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

That raises another question. Why on earth are the Girl Guides getting involved in stuff like this? They are a youth organisation mainly involved with camping and woodcraft and should stick to that. It's like the RNLI campaigning to teach burkha women to swim. It's got nothing to do with their core purpose and is 'mission creep' caused by professional administrators and PR people moving in and devouring organisations like ideological locusts.

You're absolutely right.

If they wanted to 'do something', it would be to have an expert in to give them information of image enhancement over the ages, from the painting of Anne of Cleves for Henry VIII, through airbrushing of 20's Hollywood starlets to the current crop of digital manipulation techniques.  This would then give them the 'power' to see through the deceit, without all that mucking about with 'something must be done!'.

[This is actually an important point.  For all of the 'Girl Power' of the last few (20+) years, the constant theme is that 'stuff needs to be done to protect girls'.  This is everywhere, from healthcare, education, the workplace -- all over the place.  Women will only have equality when they can just get on with life without people telling them that they need to be protected all the time.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2020 at 15:32, Libspero said:

I guess she's just making a living selling a fantasy to men/women who enjoy the "world" she has created.

The fact that the fantasy has no basis in reality seems largely irrelevant to me..   who was ever going to meet her in real life anyway ?

It seems like the modern equivalent of "sexy phone chat lines" of the 70s/80s where the lady in the swimming costume in the picture was in reality just fat Sharon from the estate.

Or "Womens Life" magazines..    look how Abi keeps fit with her 10 golden rules..     where Abi was photo shopped to impossibly attractive.

It's all bollocks..  and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably happier in their fantasy land anyway..  why not just leave them there O.o

When I was a little girl I used to draw moles and facial hair on the ladies on the front of my mother’s Woman’s Own magazine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...