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

181–190 of 634 posts

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

#181

Post by naillo »

sva_ wrote: post #176
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.

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.

Please be more empathetic to people who beg for money.

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

#182

Post by phpisthebest »

bumby wrote: post #166
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…

> 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 de…

That depends on the type and scope of "negative externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies agree on the where to draw that line.

Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions would raise to the level for government regulations (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all.

I dont know if I have a good answer

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

#184

Post by de6u99er »

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.

What they are intendet to do, is generate views and likes for the owner(s) of the channel.

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

#186

Post by nixcraft »

I looked into the comments posted on Video. It went viral because kids thought she cried and was lonely (something that many teens have in common, and with many comments, likes and shares, it went viral). The video title said, "I hope this made her day better". So basically, he tricked her, and the Video cuts at the right time with clever video editing, giving a false sense to the viewer that he was kind to her. It is about pumping numbers to get sponsorship while exploiting people's personal lives. The Video is still up and counting. He could have taken it down, but fame is more important than helping a fellow person who is his grandma's age.

The battle for privacy was lost a long time ago :(

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

#188

Post by andai »

joshjje wrote: post #135
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…

"And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is human nature.

I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism, whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's wired differently? True altruism would be going against what feels good, because I know it to be right.

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

#190

Post by nkozyra »

robg wrote: post #175
nkozyra wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Criminal and civil lawsuits are separable.

Of course, you can sue for literally anything, but what damages would they claim?

Post reply on HN