Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They didn’t ask to go viral

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 234 posts

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#51

Post by at_a_remove »

blueflow wrote: post #8

The online shaming culture at tumblr, twitter and reddit was what convinced me that you need to stay pseudonymous on the internet at all cost. There are so many people that participate in this and haven't realized yet that they are being an asshole to random strangers.

In the late 1980s, I got online. I refused to use my real name anywhere. I said, "Someone could run this Usenet group off to tape, restore it some time later, index it, and somehow make that available." I was derided as a paranoid fool. And yet here we are. One of my "handles" is still visible in a help file from 1993.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#52

Post by [deleted] »

newsclues wrote: post #7

Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.

[deleted]

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#53

Post by yosito »

hattmall wrote: post #23
yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

I think it's actually pretty reasonable to have an expectation of relative privacy even while in public. As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby. For the entirety of human existence until it very slowly started changing with cameras, but that rate of change has accelerated exponentially in the last ~15 years with ubiquitous camera phones and…

> As in I'm obviously expecting to be seen by the people in my immediate vicinity but not by people who aren't nearby.

If you're in a forest, maybe that's reasonable. But it would really be interesting to see some statistics about how many security cameras the average person is recorded on in a day, with the images broadcasted to servers around the world. I'd wager a guess that in modern cosmopolitan cities, it's probably upwards of 100 cameras a day. Meanwhile we're completely unaware of this fact and get upset when a stranger points a smartphone at us.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#54

Post by nullindividual »

dustincoates wrote: post #28
nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm always shocked by just how vicious the Reddit community is, especially from a group who considers themselves highly intelligent (compared to those "other" people). Videos like you describe are there every time I visit, along with fight videos and comments making up a back story as to what the victim did to deserve it, etc. Sometimes I wonder why things like vigilanteis…

> I'm always shocked by just how vicious the Reddit community is

Eventually you won't be shocked.

It's anonymous and you can say (almost) anything you like. Moderation of large subs is a joke, even before the strike. Just like the reddit "Trust and Safety" team, the mods of this particular subreddit, even though the post violated a sub rule along with the site rule, stayed up, unlocked.

> but not anymore if it becomes viral enough.

Not everyone wants to be a celebrity. But just read _this_ thread. You have at least one individual justifying this behavior.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#55

Post by yosito »

nullindividual wrote: post #50
yosito wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead? Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the…

> They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. No. No it wouldn't have been. You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress. People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to co…

> No it wouldn't have been.

What if I catch an off duty cop on camera assaulting a person of color? Is it immoral to post that online? Where do you draw the line about which public acts should be moral to show in public?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#56

Post by throw382736 »

blueflow wrote: post #8

The online shaming culture at tumblr, twitter and reddit was what convinced me that you need to stay pseudonymous on the internet at all cost. There are so many people that participate in this and haven't realized yet that they are being an asshole to random strangers.

This is why I still wear a mask outside. If I'm filmed, at least I'll be harder to recognize.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#57

Post by mackatap »

dustincoates wrote: post #28
nullindividual wrote: post #4

Social media truly is the opioid of today's society. While browsing /r/all, I ran across a post from a very popular sub which had an airport worker stripping in the airport, flailing on the floor, etc. No one knows why, could have been drugs, could have been a mental defect. Yet many of the thousands of responses were laughing because they could see the man's flaccid penis. While we don't know what caused the man to…

I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm always shocked by just how vicious the Reddit community is, especially from a group who considers themselves highly intelligent (compared to those "other" people). Videos like you describe are there every time I visit, along with fight videos and comments making up a back story as to what the victim did to deserve it, etc. Sometimes I wonder why things like vigilanteis…

Reddit has grown large enough to lose any identity it once had. It used to be tech literate, now it is really just the average population.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#58

Post by yosito »

rolph wrote: post #36
yosito wrote: post #18

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be…

>> There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public this is the most incorrect statement i have seen today. you should experience what happens if you walk up to a woman with a purse and start rummaging through it. clothes would be unreasonable as well, you should look under peoples garments and tell them about how unreasonable they are being .

Rummaging though someone's personal belongings is not the same as observing and reporting what they do in public. I am not making that argument, and you are being disingenuous to imply that I am.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#59

Post by rcme »

yosito wrote: post #44
rcme wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re confusing legal duty with moral duty. I have no reasonable expectation conversational counterparts aren’t lying through their teeth, but I have the moral expectation that they’re telling the truth. Similarly, you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet, but I think you would still feel an invasion of your privacy should I post your browsing history, along with your real name, publicly…

> you have no expectation of privacy when browsing the internet Uh, yes I do. And a very reasonable one!

Why? When you’re browsing the internet, you’re connecting to servers owned by others and agreeing to their terms of service. You’re also using a service provider to provide your internet service, which is, again, privately owned. From where to you derive your expectation of privacy?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#60

Post by junon »

While I agree, humans are immoral, and will always be immoral. We're inherently flawed and self-serving (speaking collectively, not individually as a rule).

This is why cryptocurrency is at its core a very good idea (I personally found the Satoshi whitepaper very beautiful), yet in practice is completely and utterly abused and useless to society - it failed to take into account that humans will do anything and everything to abuse a system for a dopamine hit or for status, etc.

As soon as technology catches up to this reality, we'll start to see change there. I don't think regulators will ever catch on to this, honestly. I think we need to stop thinking they will.

I don't know the solutions here, but this is my pessimistic take. It makes the problems harder (but IMO not unsolvable).

Post reply on HN