Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 634 posts

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#31

Post by ABoredBirb »

dwringer wrote: post #22
CPLX wrote: post #7

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

Were they also in need of being filmed and put in front of a large audience against their wishes, whilst being portrayed as old and sad?

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#32

Post by PeterWhittaker »

dwringer wrote: post #22
CPLX wrote: post #7

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

The filming may be candid, but to air, the subject must sign a waiver. Whether the subjects were compensated for agreeing to the airing of the footage is a different Q.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#33

Post by prepend »

dwringer wrote: post #22
CPLX wrote: post #7

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

Candid Camera acquired consent and revealed the cameras as part of the joke.

It would have been such a sinister show if they never revealed it was a joke and never got permission to distribute the video.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#35

Post by naillo »

drakonka wrote: post #16

The video itself was quite off-putting when I first saw it. He didn't even just kindly offer her flowers. He _tricked_ her into taking them by making it sound like he just wanted her to hold them for him. She was actually being kind to him by doing him a favor, and then he basically ran away and stuck her with them. That's not kind at all, it's pushy and exploitative. As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gif…

It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mysterydip wrote: post #19
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just enforce the existing laws in a reasonable manner" seems to be the solution to a lot of problems these days.

"We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does.

> "We're going to do what we already should be doing" doesn't get re-election votes the same way "I made a new law to address this" does

In most systems, legislators have smaller constituencies than the executives. No President or Prime Minister will swing meaningful votes by prioritizing enforcement of consent-to-be-photographed laws. But an MP or Congressperson with an off-year primary projected to be within a 1,000-vote margin might find those 50 or 60 extra votes helpful.

That said, the ordinary course would be for said legislator to compel the executive to enforce. Not to write more laws. (The latter being easier to do, easier to message and less prone to backfiring.)

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#37

Post by mihaic »

dwringer wrote: post #22
CPLX wrote: post #7

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

Besides the fact that TV shows always get consent all those being filmed, there is a quantitative difference between this and Candid Camera.

Too many people now want to engage in these fake and superficial acts of "kindness", and it's messing up general day-to-day behavior and values.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#38

Post by Dracophoenix »

hef19898 wrote: post #4
vmchale wrote: post #3

Depictions of oneself are part of your identity, but the only way to control such things is via copyright, which is assigned to the person filming. Could really use some new laws here.

If a person is the main subject of a picture, the photographer (or videographer) needa consent of the model to use that image or vidoe. Already under current law in most places. And most legitimate publishers ask for proof of consent when buying, before publishing such pictures. That social media firms don't care is not a big surprise. Edit: And that influencers think they are above existing laws when it comes to con…

I can't speak for Australia, but in the United States, there is generally no right to privacy in a public area. The model consent forms are more of a CYA than a legal requirement. It's useful as evidence to dismiss charges rather than go through the hassle and expense of a full trial.

In addition, requiring the consent of people in public places would make it difficult for individuals to record illegal conduct committed by others, especially law enforcement.

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#39

Post by soylentcola »

dwringer wrote: post #22
CPLX wrote: post #7

It’s not that hard to just say that the idea of creating huge monetary incentives to harass, interrupt, or just distract people in public was a bad idea.

To me it just seems like a lighthearted prank which resulted in giving flowers to someone who appears in need of cheering up. It's something that could easily have been on any comedy TV show of the last 30 years. And I think there's always been a monetary incentive; Candid Camera first aired in 1948.

But I'd imagine that Candid Camera required "participants" to sign a release. Same for those "Funniest Home Videos" and even stuff like Borat (and Tom Green, etc. before him).

Re: Woman ‘dehumanised’ by viral TikTok filmed without her consent

#40

Post by nonrandomstring »

The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

Post reply on HN