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

161–170 of 634 posts

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

#161

Post by Dracophoenix »

hef19898 wrote: post #60
Dracophoenix wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article from an US blog about that and it is similar to the situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main subject. If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required. A particular person as the main subject, yes, consent is absolutely necessary. E.g. newspapers don't buy or publish pictures of pe…

> You need consent, in the US (I recebtly read an article from an US blog about that and it is similar to the situation I know in Europe) if the oerson is the main subject.

Perhaps you're referring to audio? If so, audio has different requirements as a result anti-wiretapping laws.

> If you film a mall, no consent from those people in the shot needed. A demonstration, sake thing, no consent required.

Permission may be required from the mall and/or storefront owners if you're filming on or inside the property.

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

#162

Post by epups »

slillibri wrote: post #104
Graffur wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your opinion on Mr Beast? I just watched a video of his for the first time and he gave away over $500,000.

Mr Beast is a game show host. He’s not giving away his own money yet everything is framed as the giant act of generosity on his part. He’s giving away money much like Bob Barker gave away kitchen sets.

But he owns his channel, no? So any money not spent in giving reverts back to him.

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

#163

Post by sschueller »

I am glad that filming someone here (Switzerland) without consent is not legal even in public. You can film in public but if a person is the center attention in your footage it becomes illegal and you need their consent especially if you publish it. Only exceptions are large public events where privacy can not be expected.

Same goes for identifiable information like license plates. For example if you film a parking lot at a cancer hospital. You need to obfuscate the plates.

If you install security cameras the some law applies, you can only film your own property and must make sure you are not filming neighbour, street or anything else. You must also post a sign indicating that a security camera is installed. Public security cameras (train etc) all require posted signs and have a strict retention policy as well as how footage is released.

Same law applies to drones or any other way you could make a photo or film so it automatically makes it illegal to film into windows or get close enough to specifically identify people on the ground.

In extremely rare and extreme cases the police may publish someones foto or video footage if it helps solve a case but it's an exception because even criminals have the right to privacy.

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

#164

Post by preommr »

Waterluvian wrote: post #14

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…

> I’ve never seen the signal to noise ratio anywhere this terrible for any other social media app.

Is the tide finally turning? Even a few months ago people were making superlative claims about how insanely good tiktok's recommendation system is. People claiming it's never-seen-before levels of addictivness. My experience has been a lot more mediocre.

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

#165

Post by Sporktacular »

powerhour wrote: post #110
ushakov wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why the hell does a TikToker need a spokesperson at all? ego boost?

Same reason I have someone change my oil -- I don't want to spend the time myself, I can afford it, and they'll probably do a better job.

You're right. His team of image consultants, publicist and spokesman are probably best able to handle this.

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

#166

Post by bumby »

phpisthebest wrote: post #136
CPLX wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately we could look at Social Media as a defective product. I think it's a much better metaphor. The product has horrible consequences and side effects. It's a for profit making entity, creating a product that often causes people to get hurt or damaged. Like lawn darts.

Well I enjoyed Lawn Darts and disagree with the prohibition on them so if the desire would be to ban social media I would also disagree with it neither were "defective" products, just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended, calling them "defective" is stretching the definition of the term if you want to make the case of…

>just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended

Then would it possibly be a better distinction to define them instead as poorly designed products with large negative externalities? If I build a product that meets it's stated goal but poisons the environment around it, it's not "defective" in the myopic view, but poorly designed in the global view. Even taking the libertarian line, doesn't the government have a role in regulating negative externalities?

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

jodrellblank wrote: post #107
highwaylights wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to tar an entire generation with the same brush, but I have noticed that younger people seem to be really taken in with these very shallow like-farming operations on YouTube and TikTok. Mr Beast is incredibly successful at this, in that his stunts produce massive numbers for very little outlay. A friend's kid in his teens was telling me about how he's the most generous person he's ever seen and it make m…

> " I really don't want to be that guy and wade into it with a "well, actually". " Be that guy; what's your criticism about Mr Beast's generosity? He does a lot of content which could be fake; like giving his friends $20,000, but ones which look more serious and genuine and costly include: - Opened a "free bank" where he loaned money into six figures to local people, then surprise! it's not a loan, they can keep it:…

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by hk1337 »

winternett wrote: post #156
naillo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…

At least if it's staged you know all the parties are in on it and it's not leaving someone "holding the bag".
Post reply on HN