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

501–510 of 634 posts

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

#501

Post by Dylan16807 »

karaterobot wrote: post #484
Dylan16807 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" Only if you're going into the whole "every act is selfish" kind of thing. > but it is also obviously NOT "random"! (For the colloquial meaning of "random" of course) Why not? It only takes a few seconds to start filming. If you mean having a camera person, that sta…

> Only if you're going into the whole "every act is selfish" kind of thing. There are selfless acts of kindness, but this isn't one of them. There's no conflict there. He did it to make a video he could monetize on TikTok. It's his job. It's a really simple distinction. > If you mean having a camera person, that starts to get into the weeds, but it depends on how much planning there was and how it was done. If he wen…

> If he went to that mall and bought flowers and picked a sympathetic-looking subject, with the intention of filming a video of himself doing it to upload to TikTok, it's not random.

Okay but that goes way beyond the general-case statement I was responding to.

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

#502

Post by khazhoux »

aunty_helen wrote: post #421

The comments in this thread are a great example of how affraid of each other we've become. How upset we get when someone is "profiting" How things we don't like or understand become something that automatically has a negative reaction. Really, what is our role in this situation? We're the flowers.

Who's afraid? She was portrayed as a pathetic loner in front of tens of millions, simply for briefly holding flowers as a favor. You don't see why she's pissed off?

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

#503

Post by a-dub »

am i alone in finding tiktok to be the single most obnoxious pop culture phenomenon to exist ever?

also, we need new rules. while it makes sense to have no expectations of privacy in public, i think an expectation of not being an unwitting participant in someone else's self-promotional quasi-commercial activities where your picture and voice may be broadcast to millions is reasonable.

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

#504

Post by khazhoux »

gumby wrote: post #321

This article confused me with the phrase, “TikTok creator Harrison Pawluk”. I looked it up and though I still don’t know who this guy is, I do know he did not write TikTok.

There are millions of TikTok creators, but only one person (Zhang Yiming) created TikTok.

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

#505

Post by khazhoux »

sarkron wrote: post #354

I guess it's fair to say that many people agree with Matthew 6, no? "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

Maybe that's part of it, but the other key thing here is that she was not in any way actually needy. He made a random person out to be a pathetic weepy loner, to an audience of millions.

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

#506

Post by TameAntelope »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #40

The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

Meh, virtue displays that still help people are fine by me.

I don't think this really helped anyone, but "dehumanizing" is an overreaction, IMO. "Mildly annoying" is probably the more accurate term.

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

#507

Post by supercheetah »

oasisbob wrote: post #370
branon wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural selection at work.

If you're implying social Darwinism being an expected natural consequence, you may want to research the history and abuses of the idea before accepting it and throwing it around so glibly.

Not even close to the same thing. Someone doing something to themselves that puts themselves in mortal danger isn't anywhere on the same level as wanting to eliminate an entire group of people based on some arbitrary attribute.

They should definitely be warned, and perhaps be put into therapy with a professional, but self harm isn't social darwinism. It's just a mental health issue.

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

#508

Post by drakonka »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #483
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…

What a weird psychological fragility. If a stranger leaves me holding their trash I shrug and shove it in a garbage bin.

What a weird straw man; he did not hand her trash, he handed her flowers under the guise of doing him a quick favor, then ran off. I guess she could think of it as trash after he left and even if she did - you genuinely wouldn't think some random person handing you their trash is kind of a rude thing of them to do?

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

#509

Post by ckw »

watwut wrote: post #337
vinyl7 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with public displays of virtue is that it comes off as seeking return value for the action. Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Seeking some other sort of value out of it (like social recognition, social credit, youtube views which end up with ad revenue) makes the act look dishonest. The act wasn't done because they were a nice person, the act was…

> Virtuous acts should be done in quiet/secret and for the simple reason for it being virtuous. Genuinely, why? As in, why is it better to do nothing then to do virtuous action that you also get some benefit from?

I would alter that slightly: virtuous acts should be done whenever an opportunity arises. When we see particularly conspicuous acts of virtue, by which the practitioner benefits greatly, especially when the opportunity to avoid conspicuousness existed but was eschewed, we are right to suspect that the act would not have taken place in the absence of an audience, and thus actually signals a lack of virtue. (Because the virtuous act so regardless of audience, and personal benefit, and even at great personal risk or hardship).

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

#510

Post by gwd »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #469
Mordisquitos wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

> 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" Only if you're going into the whole "every act is selfish" kind of thing. > but it is also obviously NOT "random"! (For the colloquial meaning of "random" of course) Why not? It only takes a few seconds to start filming. If you mean having a camera person, that sta…

“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."

--Jesus

Post reply on HN