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

171–180 of 634 posts

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

#171

Post by unholythree »

protonbob wrote: post #127
curiousgal wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of the same coin): " To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do. " Al-Baqarah 272

I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.

I think people down voted this thinking it’s pedantic, but there is a pretty significant distinction theologically between this Quran passage and the biblical description of how sins are forgiven. Although both books do encourage secret charity.

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

#172

Post by robg »

naillo wrote: post #42
prepend wrote: post #27

I thought media releases were required for image rights before video could be commercialized? I always find these videos cheesy and fake and assumed they had received legal permission (if not hired actors to pose). If these jerks are filming and posing unwilling participants in their product, that seems pretty easy to remedy. I remember a few years ago pornhub had a decision to get positive consent from people in vid…

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

It’s not necessarily illegal (criminal) it’s the potential damages for the civil offense (using her likeness without her consent causing untold losses to her).

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

#173

Post by sixothree »

azemetre wrote: post #106
silicon2401 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about this story that the thread is discussing? The woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue here just understanding your thought process, because I agree with the poster you replied to.

Agreed. I don't see any kindness in this video at all.

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

#174

Post by phpisthebest »

CPLX wrote: post #149
phpisthebest wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference between the two of them is that due to historical specifics, the social media companies have Section 230, which completely immunizes them from dealing with the consequences of any of their actions. Without that they'd be subject to the same constraints as your average newspaper or TV station. Which is to say not a lot of constraints. But there would in fact be a means to address the consequences of the…

Given the clear editorial choices via moderation that the platforms have chosen to undertake I would be in favor of treating them like a newspaper of TV Station

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

#175

Post by robg »

nkozyra wrote: post #84
strogonoff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Criminal and civil lawsuits are separable.

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

#176

Post by sva_ »

naillo wrote: post #35
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.

With the amount of beggars in cities, I already highly distrust anyone who comes up to me to speak to me. 99 out of 100 times it is someone who tries to somehow enrich themselves.

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

#177

Post by password54321 »

V-2 wrote: post #148

This is a form of douchebaggery, sure, but "dehumanised" seems a bit out of proportion here. I'd reconsider such phrases out of respect for all the people who have been genuinely dehumanised throughout history, if nothing else.

Used for profit without consent can very well feel dehumanising.

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

#178

Post by bumby »

azemetre wrote: post #106
silicon2401 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about this story that the thread is discussing? The woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue here just understanding your thought process, because I agree with the poster you replied to.

I think the distinction comes from differing worldviews on moral behavior.

Consequentialists believe all that matters is the "ends". So even if I filmed something with the aim of patting myself on the back but it made people feel good, it's moral because the outcome was positive.

Others believe all that matters is intent. A good Samaritan may act recklessly and end up maiming somebody, but they acted morally because they had positive intent to offer aid.

(Of course, there's many other takes but those seem to be the one's germane to this part of the discussion).

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

Zachsa999 wrote: post #122
jodrellblank wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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:…

This is important because Mr Beast doesn't actually spend a lot of time self aggrandising. He approaches philanthropy similarly to how many ultra wealthy people do; giving in public, only he makes more from it.

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by antiterra »

highwaylights wrote: post #20
titzer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is it that shows the exact opposite of love and compassion. Self-aggrandizement and no regard for others, motivated only by the needs of self, and didn't even spend an extra second with her beyond what was required to execute this vapid stunt.

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…

It’s definitely a commercial generosity, but I think it differs.

Mr. Beast’s brand, and presumably identity, centers around a Calvinist ethic that hard work is a virtue even when exerted to meaningless ends. There’s a ‘don’t act too big for your britches’ undercurrent as well, flashy cars are props returned at the end of the day, not the spoils. He trades a lot of the mawkish sentimentality for self-deprecation.

Another practical difference is that giving strangers money provides more actual utility vs a bouquet of flowers. His targets for interaction are usually more appropriate, often people he has a reason to interact with or where he asks for participation.

Post reply on HN