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

491–500 of 634 posts

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

#491

Post by datavirtue »

mjevans wrote: post #468
nonameking2026 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

If cynical enough, no act is selfless. That phrase, to 'remove yourself from the equation' applies here too. That leads to a better 'test' and metric.

'remove yourself from the equation'

The real definition of compassion.

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

#492

Post by davesque »

FunnyBadger wrote: post #481

Seriously? Apparently no one knows or has seen Alan Funt's Candid Camera. This was no worse than hundreds of situations that Funt created, filmed and put in TV over decades.

I remember Candid Camera. I don't think the general comparison with Candid Camera really lines up. I'm not sure I can explain why exactly. Maybe there was just a different general attitude that people had about that sort of thing back then. Maybe people were given the opportunity to sign consent forms before the video was broadcast. Perhaps it was less of a problem because it had to be more carefully orchestrated; not everyone had a video recording device in their pocket.

However, in this specific case, I think the biggest problem was that falsehoods were being spread about this person without her consent. From the article:

    But after seeing the TikTok video featured in media reports describing her as an “elderly woman” with a “heartbreaking tale,” she said she “felt dehumanised”.
The woman's response:

    “It’s the patronising assumption that … older women will be thrilled by some random stranger giving them flowers.”
Seems totally fair to me. She now has to feel like she's an object of pity. And the original gesture was clearly self-serving. If you check out the rest of this guy's TikTok videos, they're all like this.

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

#493

Post by dylan604 »

datavirtue wrote: post #490
dylan604 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

A huge swath of the population thinks life is a TV show. Not consciously, but in the back of their mind because they have spent so much time living through entertainment. "To the Capital building...this should be fun!!" Hahaha....

Or how the real houswives are really not acting or any reality tv show is not make-believe for entertainment purposes.

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

#494

Post by drakonka »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #464
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…

> As someone who doesn't usually like to accept gifts from random strangers I'm dubious this happens enough for you to even have an opinion about it. What sorts of gifts are random strangers giving you?

It's happened enough to know I'm not into it. You don't know when they just genuinely want to do something nice or when they're expecting something in return. I've had someone hand me a flower and then ask for my number. It got kind of awkward. Other times they hand you something making it out to be a gift, but then when you hold it in your hand they actually expect money for it. A trick sales tactic. And being _really_ pessimistic (unfortunately also from experience), who knows where that object has been or what's in/on it. And now, of course, who knows if they're actually filming you for some cringe TikTok video (luckily this one has not happened to me).

It does depend on the place, situation, and general vibe you get from the person, though. Aside from awkward experiences, I think it's just weird and rude to hand someone something under the guise of asking them to hold it for you and run away, then try to claim it as some sort of act of kindness.

One act of genuine kindness from a total stranger that still stands out to me the most years later did not involve them giving me anything.

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

#495

Post by winternett »

pdonis wrote: post #434
winternett wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the entire Internet now... Got it. These apps don't allow for people to choose the content they see. Even the front page of CNN.Com is regularly now citing TikTok clips that went "viral". In the next few years there will be no way to avoid this staged and shilled content anywhere. Especially as monopoly platforms begin to collaborate with each other to create marketing campaigns. Suggestive/manipulative marketin…

> Like the entire Internet now Not even close. There are plenty of places on the Internet that are not infected with this trash. (This site is one of them: nobody has to wade through videos and ads just to post here.) It is unfortunate that so-called "mainstream news" sites like CNN are not among them, but that's CNN's problem.

Give me a good example, and I'll give you an example in that instance where you're wrong. If sites are not currently contaminated by fake and staged content, I guarantee you they soon will be.

News sources previously reporting on and praising crypto companies and coins that have now been exposed as scams (now gone bankrupt) is a troubling sign that even journalism is relying on likes for reputation more than properly checking sources.

Many influencers pushed crypto heavily in the past years, leading to huge money losses for people who follow them. There has still never been proper public account for how this social media content cycle mentally manipulates people regularly.

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

#496

Post by winternett »

martin_a wrote: post #218
winternett wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. gaining influence with videos like these (widespread, "easy content") will probably earn you some advertisement deals

That's the problem... Advertisers seeking easily "malleable" actors to shill their products... People who they can also underpay and over-contract. Social media is a gold mine for exploiting people who need opportunity... Especially young people.

They're unionizing Starbucks, but it might be wiser/better to unionize social media creators before it's too late.

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

#497

Post by protonbob »

tsol wrote: post #420
twodave wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been…

So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God? I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.

The reward is being in a state of obedience to Christ and his will which is a reward in and of itself.

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

#498

Post by pdonis »

winternett wrote: post #495
pdonis wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like the entire Internet now Not even close. There are plenty of places on the Internet that are not infected with this trash. (This site is one of them: nobody has to wade through videos and ads just to post here.) It is unfortunate that so-called "mainstream news" sites like CNN are not among them, but that's CNN's problem.

Give me a good example, and I'll give you an example in that instance where you're wrong. If sites are not currently contaminated by fake and staged content, I guarantee you they soon will be. News sources previously reporting on and praising crypto companies and coins that have now been exposed as scams (now gone bankrupt) is a troubling sign that even journalism is relying on likes for reputation more than properly…

> Give me a good example

I already gave you one: this very site.

> a troubling sign that even journalism is relying on likes for reputation more than properly checking sources.

So-called journalism has been in that mode for decades, if not centuries. If anything, the Internet makes it harder for them to keep it up, because there are so many more ways for their practices to actually be exposed so people can see them. That might make it seem like journalists do more of that kind of thing than they used to, but it doesn't; it just means that they get caught at it a lot more than they used to.

> There has still never been proper public account for how this social media content cycle mentally manipulates people regularly.

Social media can only mentally manipulate you if you're naive enough to (a) use it, and (b) believe what you see on it. No amount of "public account" is going to fix that problem.

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

#499

Post by dragonwriter »

tsol wrote: post #420
twodave wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been…

So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God? I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.

> So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God?

Love of ones fellow man.

> I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.

To the extent that there may be, that reward is not generally viewed in most Christian doctrine as the motivator. Christianity is not, predomonantly, doctrinally, transactional in that way.

(Transactional personal beliefs are, however, far more common in Christianity than formal doctrine would suggest, and political Christianity frequently invokes a transactional view that is at odds with common doctrine.)

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

#500

Post by watwut »

apeace wrote: post #409

The woman's reaction to feeling patronized is a valid one. But at the same time, I think we probably want to make room for this kind of content online. The internet is so full of hatred and vitriol. I had to leave Instagram because I couldn't stand the constant political diatribes, gotcha-style quotes and clips, etc. It just brought so much negativity into my life, and I'm much happier without seeing it anymore. I do…

The simple thing that was missing was to come back and ask for permission. She would either said "yes" or "no". If no' he can try again.
Post reply on HN