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

441–450 of 634 posts

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

#441

Post by nonameking2026 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #287
phkahler wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Even car accidents... I hate when a real car accident is attributed to a drunk driver when it was not. There are plenty of wrecked cars from actual drunk driving, you don't need to lie to get an example. Some people think their intentions justify their actions, even when their actions can accurately be described as "lie" or "cheat" or "for profit" or some other dishonest thing. This may be effective in many cases,…

> Random acts of kindness DO happen, but are usually not captured on video. Indeed. In fact, when the act is intentionally captured on video by its performer, not only is it already very debatable that it is an act of "kindness"... but it is also obviously NOT "random"! (For the colloquial meaning of "random" of course)

You can make the case that it's not an "act of kindness" when your motive is self promotion and gratification.

Also giving someone flowers is quite a cheap kindness. Help somebody in need out. Or just go clean the streets. No good content clickbait video to be made of you picking up the trash ?

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

#443

Post by pwdisswordfish9 »

drcongo wrote: post #338
gonzo41 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Journalists' dont' give a shit about anyone. Her concerns are mute, now they guardian gets to talk about the meta issue. The tiktok was exploitative, the guardian article was likewise exploitative. They could have not linked to the channel and also just written a description of the tiktok. Choices were may, all of them to exploit that women directly or indirectly by piling onto the hype.

Small thing, "moot" not "mute".

Well, it’s not like she’s been meaningfully given a voice…

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

#444

Post by nonameking2026 »

teakettle42 wrote: post #399
alias_neo wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I, individually, and on various occasions over the years, have paid for random strangers' shopping. We don't do social media, we don't even tell anybody, except for this one time, right now to support your point, so I think it's appropriate in this case. We've told each other because we talk about our finances and it's reasonably to discuss why the grocery bill was double triple, etc what it would have be…

Would you mind sharing how you do this without making it awkward for the recipient or a spectacle? I’ve never been able to work that part out.

Yeah - it would be strange if someone offered to pay for my groceries, just because I was wearing old jeans looking depressed and worried because of the price of bitcoin.

But I think it's a good thing to do if you "hit" the correct "target".

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

#446

Post by kleer001 »

sbf501 wrote: post #365
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…

This is even older than Jesus. I also am not religious, but there is a hebrew tradition of Tzedakah mentioned by another poster below, but here are the levels instead of a link., Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so chee…

Yea, I wonder what it would be like to live in a culture, in a civilization, without usury. I think it'd be pretty nice.

Also, isn't most important stuff older than Jesus? Like, he's a bit of a best-of compilation, right? Not to denigrate the story, I'm a big fan.

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

#447

Post by charcircuit »

headsoup wrote: post #48
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.

I would like to ask this tiktok guy how often he does his random acts of kindness without the camera rolling...

If you are doing a random act of kindness you might as well film it too. Is there any incentive not to film it?

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

#448

Post by dylan604 »

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…

>but there's never disclaimer that the video is staged or a skit.

This is where working in the entertainment industry has jaded me a bit. By default, I assume that if it captured on camera, it has been planned/staged/etc for the explicit purpose of being shown to people. With social media, I think it has been turned up to an 11 as everyone is trying to become social media famous. It takes a bit of convincing for me to believe that something is truly real at this point.

Due to the "inside baseball" knowledge of how fake everything is on film/TV, I find it sad that so so many people fall for thinking something is real and actually needs this kind of disclaimer.

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

#449

Post by isitmadeofglass »

There should be some easy way to report the content with proof that your the main subject of a video, and unless the creator proves concent the victim gets any and all proceeds plus a “publicity” fee.

This will stop these horrible “acts of kindness” that are nothing but attempts at going viral and making money with blatant disregard for their victims.

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

#450

Post by finder83 »

sudosteph wrote: post #418
finder83 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be some overlap in some denominations I'm not aware of, but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, it's largely only a Catholic thing. In Catholicism, the first Eucharist has a particular significance as Christ/the Spirit dwelling within you. In Protestantism, it's only an ordinance, so is only a representation/ritual/tradition. There is often a component of confessing sins privately before partaking though,…

Great summary! It's not actually talked about much, and not even well understood by many Protestants themselves, but it actually is a sacrament in most major Protestant traditions I'm familiar with (Reformed[1], Lutheran[2], Anglican, Methodist[4]). Zwingli was the only major reformer I know of to take purely memorialist stance, while Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all professed some degree of presence (spritual presence…

Thanks for correcting me, I was completely off on that! I realized after your post that I was thinking of transubstantiation instead of sacrament/ordinance. I'm Baptist and both in the 1689 confession [1] and the baptist faith and message 2000 [2] it's considered an ordinance, so most southern baptist churches to my knowledge consider it an ordinance, even those that are reformed-leaning. There are also other non-mainline denominations, probably mostly non-reformed, where it's usually an ordinance, such as Pentecostalism.

My confusion was that I was equating transubstantiation with it being a sacrament...so to my knowledge only Anglicans have preserved full transubstantiation (with others having some mixture of Christ being present)

[1] https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter30 [2] https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#vii

I think it's safe to say that in almost all protestant denominations, the Eucharist is not a means of salvation though. I would hope that all would say salvation is through grace alone through faith alone. Let me know if you disagree though, I'd be curious of exceptions.

Post reply on HN