51–60 of 634 posts
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
The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.
I don’t know if it’s news but she’s kinda right in calling it out for how fake and sinister these trends are and how these people profit from them
It's the TikTok-effect in action I guess. I had a fun experience with the Instagram-effect recently. I tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't judge me, it's interesting!) and I couldn't get near the viewing platform because someone had a crew lighting their shots for Instagram. They asked me to wait for a couple of minutes to get finished, which I did. Ten minutes later a crowd had built up on the ramp…
Why would you be judged for that? Botanical gardens are great.
TikTok and Instagram are fascinating to me. I got on the latter less than a year ago and seem to have “used up” all the decent content. There are some content generators that still do a good job. But it’s loaded with a whole spectrum of operators who are simply trying to game the system. Yesterday on my timeline was a video of a machine in a factory in China that rotates a drum 180 degrees. It had a million views and…
Sign out of YouTube and see what's "popular".
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
I don’t know if it’s news but she’s kinda right in calling it out for how fake and sinister these trends are and how these people profit from them
It's the TikTok-effect in action I guess. I had a fun experience with the Instagram-effect recently. I tried to visit an arboretum earlier this year (don't judge me, it's interesting!) and I couldn't get near the viewing platform because someone had a crew lighting their shots for Instagram. They asked me to wait for a couple of minutes to get finished, which I did. Ten minutes later a crowd had built up on the ramp…
I'm a naturally nice guy, but these people were making my vacation less enjoyable for no reason, and I felt an instinctive urge to ruin their experience as well.
"So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do ... to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6
I wouldn't hold any flowers or anything really for any stranger in public. I've been to touristy places before and learned this lesson just by observation. High likelyhood some pressure style selling tactics would follow. Really, putting things on the groud or some other higher surface to free your hands should be a basic human skill by now.
As you walk away with said thing, that person will accuse you of stealing and use it as means for a physical altercation.
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
I dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed. The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.
Notice the wording "ENDS"
That would modify your statement as follows :
Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS).
OR restating your sentence:
"Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely unintended and unexpected"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 commit…
A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish pictures of people without gwtting consent of the model / person from the seller. Persons of public interest, read promis and paparazzis, are different in the details of the interpretation of that law. And those are litigated often enough.