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

591–600 of 634 posts

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

#591

Post by Crespyl »

bshipp wrote: post #536
gnicholas wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"! I was about to propose to my girlfriend and was setting up my DSLR on a tripod to take photos via IR remote (she thought we were just going to take photos of us at sunset). Then a guy came walking by and offered to take the photos for us. I…

Usually you can tell a plant by their lack of opposable thumbs and green pallor.

That's only the obvious ones.

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

#592

Post by b112 »

gambiting wrote: post #514
b112 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall a few years back, I was going to visit someone, and bought flowers. Before I left, plans changed, so now I was in the mall parking lot, and had (to me) useless flowers. In the parking lot, I saw an older woman sitting in her car. I walked up to her, proclaimed "surprise, flowers!", which she took, and I walked away. It is sad to think that these days, it almost makes more sense to just throw them away, inste…

The difference is that you didn't use the opportunity to promote your brand on social media, nor did you trick her into holding the flowers for you just to disappear. I think the reaction would have been completely different if he did actually present those as a gift.

Sure, but my point was, as a reply to the thread above, now people my be hesitant to receive such a gift as genuine.

Or give it, for fear of a negative response... the well is being poisoned.

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

#594

Post by dragonwriter »

tsol wrote: post #570
dragonwriter wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Love of ones fellow man Hmm interesting. I wonder is love really a motivator? It's more of a reason, right? "I give charity because I love my fellow man". I feel like that's not inclusive. Like what about people who don't love their fellow man all that much? I mean is that even allowed?-- If I'm a Christian do I have to love my fellow man to the point of charity? What if I call myself Christian but I think most peop…

> I wonder is love really a motivator? It's more of a reason, right?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing here.

> Like what about people who don't love their fellow man all that much? I mean is that even allowed?

“Allowed” as in “not sinful”? No.

“Allowed” as in “forgivable”? Yes.

> If I'm a Christian do I have to love my fellow man to the point of charity?

For certain values of “have to”, yes, though it doesn't have to be expressed by giving money to a recognized charity. But equally Christianity means you have to accept that virtually every actual person will fall short of what they “have to” do.

> What if I call myself Christian but I think most people are rude and selfish and have a hard time loving them.. does that make me not Christian?

No, having a hard time doesn't make you not Christian.

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

#595

Post by hackyhacky »

CPLX wrote: post #471
hackyhacky wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of content on social media is curated by automatic means. Manual curation at that scale, is, as you know, infeasible.

Automatic perhaps, but still editorial in the decision making process. As soon as you start deciding to show some content and not other content based on the content of the communications you're making editorial decisions. Algorithms or not, it's a judgement call.

Sure it is. It's also inevitable. Every communications medium makes similar judgement calls, including broadcast television, which chooses which shows to air based on their content, and which news story to cover, based on their content. Given the scale of social media, curation is a necessity.

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

#596

Post by strogonoff »

nkozyra wrote: post #574
strogonoff wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but similarly if someone steals your bicycle/car/camera while you’re not using it and then brings it back in pristine condition, what damages would you claim? It’s more like “this is my property, I make it available to public under some conditions, this guy violates that condition”. That said, the reality is that property owners and adjacent people often benefits from property being featured in a viral video. U…

> IANAL but similarly if someone steals your bicycle/car/camera while you’re not using it and then brings it back in pristine condition, what damages would you claim? But that's ... a crime. Generally you can't sue for damages after a crime unless you can claim damages.

Fair enough!

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

#597

Post by strogonoff »

anotherman554 wrote: post #515
micromacrofoot wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you'd need permission to film the location, and without a release you could be stopped from using the video commercially (social media can count as commercial use if the uploader profits from views) This can cover public places too, some localities require a permit to film a public place for commercial use.

I think the issue with getting a release is it shields you from litigation. It doesn't necessarily mean you'd lose the litigation if you didn't get the release, but a business is not going to want to take the risk they'd have litigation hanging over their head preventing the exploitation of the intellectual property asset. A journalist presumably isn't going to be getting permission to film, they are going to show up…

I think the intent should matter, but how to capture this in the letter of the law is the question.

The intent is wildly different between actual journalism, and indie film or art project shoot, and behaving obnoxiously towards bystanders in order to directly convert attention into money.

Does TikTok require a business account or something like that in order to be paid? That could be a useful indicator.

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

#598

Post by jnsaff2 »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #582
jnsaff2 wrote: post #419

I find a very stark contrast between this discussion and the one on dominos couple of days ago [0]. There most people thought it was all well and good to spend 50M to advertise a 100k kindness. This is just business. Here people (IMO correctly) see this a virtue signaling and not kindness. To me there is really no difference, Dominos did not do kindness, neither did this tiktok douche. All calculated to mislead peopl…

And people donate to get parks built, largely for the plaque with their name on it. At the end of the day, the public still gets a park. Good has been done. Fixating on motivates is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't "good people" or "bad people". There are just people, and motives are almost always mixed. The people who are smearing this kid are acting worse than the kid himself. I'll drink your…

With the park and a plaque the ratio of good (park) to a I guess dopamine boost (plaque) is decidedly in favor of the good, orders of magnitude better. Let alone that the plaque is often in memory of someone close to the one making the donation.

In case of dominos the ratio is so much out of whack that the profit motive completely drowns the good.

In case of this tiktok dude what good was being made at all? Some emotional buttons were pushed in watchers? Do it hundreds of times and they are desensitized to actual goodness. All in the name of what, a few bucks to be made?

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

#599

Post by mrunkel »

decremental wrote: post #546
notriddle wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Selection bias. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that is total gibberish to modern ears. 2. Inversed cause and effect. Even if you aren't Christian, there's a good chance that the morals you were taught as a child are influenced by it. The Christian Bible is literally the world's best selling book.

Going further it's in fact the very foundation of the morality of western civilization. It's little wonder why it's constantly under attack and diminished.

Western civilization existed long before the bible (the Greeks) and the predominant culture spread throughout western civilization (Roman) was non-Christian long before it was Christian.

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

#600

Post by DocTomoe »

tomc1985 wrote: post #523
msrenee wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that refutes my argument.

So how do we get these people to stop harassing folks?

Put them under psychiatric evaluation, e.g. in a ward. Someone who is in a hospital is not able to harass people on the streets.

But for that, you'd need a functioning healthcare system.

Post reply on HN