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

81–90 of 634 posts

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

#81

Post by Graffur »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #57

I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "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 s…

Reminds me of when I was a child and my very religious Aunt and Uncles would slip me a 5 pound note without saying anything and without it being obvious to my parents :)

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

#82

Post by treesknees »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

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

It depends on the context and use of the video, and I really blame social media for driving this constant pressure to be relevant and generate content people will interact with.

Granted this isn't a random act, but at a family birthday gathering sometimes it can be fun to take a photo or video of a loved one opening a present and capturing their genuine surprise as a memory. But I've never uploaded them to the Internet, because it wasn't about likes or shares. And I don't feel that capturing the moment ruined any of the meaning behind it.

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

#83

Post by throwaway0a5e »

nkozyra wrote: post #75
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…

Obviously the most exploitative thing is doing it for the clicks, but none of this has ever felt "sweet" or "positive" or whatever other guise they're presented as. I wonder who finds this type of content genuinely appealing?

>I wonder who finds this type of content genuinely appealing?

The only people I've ever heard say anything about this kind of content are radio DJs who are talking about the wholesome stuff they've posted to their employer's twitter and why you should definitely follow them.

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

#84

Post by nkozyra »

strogonoff wrote: post #74
naillo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you film in public places (depending on the country) it's often legal. Still really rude though and should be socially discouraged.

Public spaces like malls require a permit/location release for a commercial shoot on the property, and social media is increasingly commercial. I would be surprised if there were no lawsuits to this effect yet.

I don't think there's much case for a lawsuit. The mall has a right to kick you out for doing so but once it's done there's not much legal recourse in the U.S.

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

#85

Post by hef19898 »

mihaic wrote: post #56
highwaylights wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've actually become a bit of a dick in these situations since a trip to Italy, and every time I see a large camera in a public place I walk in front of it on purpose. 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.

There is a difference between the social.media selfie photographers and those people trying to take nice pictures of beautiful places. A big camera usually points at tue latter, phones and lighting and whatnot at the former.

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

#86

Post by usrusr »

macns wrote: post #15

> He wholeheartedly apologises to Maree if she was offended by what he did and urges her to contact him privately so he can personally apologise. > If she requests him to take down the video he will do that. The video should've been taken down already.

You assume that she would request the video taken down. But she might have realized that from her perspective, the damage is already done and she would gain nothing from the video being taken down. And would very much prefer him to get his share of unwanted attention as well (e.g. making it all the way to the hn frontpage)

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

#87

Post by micromacrofoot »

Invictus0 wrote: post #53

Nothing wrong with the video imo, if people think it's stupid that's just their opinion. When you're in public anything goes. The place this went wrong is that they lied to her about being filmed and didn't get her consent: but on the other hand, no one expects security camera operators to get consent either.

There might be a case for calling this kind of video "commercial use" to help someone profit off of views. In many places that requires a signed release from the subject of the video.

Security footage isn't generally used to advertise a product or person.

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

#88

Post by phpisthebest »

silicon2401 wrote: post #68
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point that you may have missed. 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"

I agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want

The flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but that all parties should agreed to the filming.

Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is very different from just showing up an putting camera's in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent

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

#89

Post by throwaway0a5e »

phpisthebest wrote: post #78
nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

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

Social Media has largely exposed the levels of narcissism embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup , Selfies, clout chasing and virtue signalling are ever increasing forms of narcissism that really has destroyed the internet IMO

It's really a shame people turned virtue signaling into a dirty world that can't be used in civil discussion. It is a great descriptor for all sorts of human behavior in all sorts of contexts.

Edit: y'all are kind of proving my first point.

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

#90

Post by hef19898 »

the_biot wrote: post #80

You think viral exploitative TikTok videos that cater to the lowest intellect are the worst thing in media right now? You'd be wrong. Writing articles about those videos is outright the lowest rung on that ladder of shit. Another low for the guardian, once a newspaper, now a propaganda/outrage rag of no news value whatsoever. Don't fall for the clickbait, and do yourself a favor: don't click on guardian links. It's a…

Actually, I see that article as the only way for that woman, and anyone else being in a viral video really, as the only means to get their voices heard as well. Hard to stink against millions of views and likes otherwise.
Post reply on HN