[zankly]

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.

[domador]

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]

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.

[birdyrooster]

So if you flash me on the subway and I take a photo of it to share... I am violating your trust?!

[stale2002]

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]

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

[metamet]

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

[ubercow13]

What would the lawsuit be for?

[electricviolet]

This is why we can't have nice things :(