They didn’t ask to go viral • Hacker News Board

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#131

Post by jancsika » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #3

The "everyone:1" ratio of internet criticism also has had an interesting effect on politics. Given the sheer amount of vitriol directed at politicians no sane person would run for election. A plausible base-case scenario is a group of socially disabled internet dwellers dedicate their life to hounding you for imagined wrongs. Let alone the pressure of making any decision in a situation where large groups of people ar…

> As a result I think we'll see detectable pressure for only risk taking narcissists to run for public office. Even beyond what is usual for politics.

I love the word "detectable" thrown in here for good scientistic measure.

What exactly do you claim you'll be measuring here?

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#132

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #129

walthamstow wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a GDPR country and I don't really see the problem with HN's approach. They own the information you typed into their website, you own the privacy of your name. Why should they delete information you gave them, rather than just help you anonymise it?

> They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-gener…

> Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case?

Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH:

> I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-generated content in the way they would be for editoral content.

This is wrong on multiple levels; it specifically does not require that it be ”dumb” (neutral) software, which would have made them a distributor not a publisher under the law without Section 230; it specifically is to allow site operators (and other users) to do things that shape which content is presented without being subject to liability as a publisher.

But that's about liability, not ownership.

> (... this doesn't even touch on the situation where that content contains intellectual property or PII.)

If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#133

Post by rolph » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #128

rolph wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 .

If you did that you could be charged with any number of charges, let's go with trespassing for starters, we can move to assault later. If the purse was open and you looked no problem. If someone frontdoor is open you can look in from a public spot but cannot walk-in.

yes thats probably right in most jurisdictions.

you are illustrating culturally, and legally accepted signals regarding expectation, or lack thereof, of privacy while in public purview.

THNX for your support BTW

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#134

Post by newsclues » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

gochi wrote: post #27

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.

This argument doesn't hold up in practice, because currently, the powerful are already protected. Look at how many cops got away with abuse, how many high profile celebrities got away with heinous things, so many examples of the powerful (in their respective realm) never facing consequences. So what actually ends up happening is most of this "public backlash" only affects people already easily accessible. Whether or…

"This argument doesn't hold up in practice, because currently, the powerful are already protected"

Not on social media. Anyone can post a video or article attacking powerful people and groups, and thus "we" need new laws that will protect people on social media.

I am blocked by my local elected representative on Twitter. I was able to get better constituency service publicly on Twitter than I can via email or voicemail. But if I can be blocked, no problem.

Censorship and safety tools on social media need to be very carefully designed because at scale they get abused.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#135

Post by xg15 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #132

xg15 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They own the information you typed into their website Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays content written by the site's users - and therefore can't be made liable for anything written in user-gener…

> Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays co…

Thanks a lot for that clarification. That actually changed my understanding of section 230: I always thought that the "shaping" of content was some sort of loophole that the section might have more or less accidentally enabled - I wasn't aware that this was its main purpose.

Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively abuse that power, the people wanting to reform/repeal the section just got a whole lot more sympathetic in my view.

> If its not IP, no one has ownership ; ownership of content only applies to IP of some kind.

(I edited the GP before I saw the reply)

My point was more who is responsible for violations of other IP in UGC - i.e. the classic case of someone uploading a blockbuster movie to YouTube. Would the liability fall on YouTube or the individual user who uploaded the content.

Or, in a similar vein, you post your address/phone number/real name/whatever to a platform, then later want to delete the post again, but the platform doesn't let you. Can you (legally) force the platform to delete the post or not?

However, the fact that both scenarios resulted in years-long, (and still ongoing) debates and in the end, new laws had to be passed to handle them (DMCA and GDPR), shows to me that the whole area seems to be extremely messy and not completely well-defined.

But yeah, the other question is also interesting: If I uploaded some personal project to YouTube (which would constitute IP I believe) and suddenly it goes viral, could Google steal the video and publish it as their own? Good to know here that they can't.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#136

Post by crazygringo » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

dml2135 wrote: post #89

crazygringo wrote: post #75

But what about the legality? You don't need people to sign a release form if you're a photojournalist or anything considered to be an editorial source. But as professional filmmakers know, you absolutely do need a release form if you're producing anything commercial (for sale). Or if you're pushing the boundaries of this like they do when filming Law & Order, to at least put up prominent signs so Manhattan pedestrian…

AFAIK, there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public. It is simply something done to reduce exposure to possible civil liability on commercial shoots. Avoiding lawsuits is the point of those forms, not winning them.

> there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public

Right, the filming is fine -- it's the commercial distribution that's the problem. And I'm assuming those civil suits have existing and succeeded in the past?

So my question is still whether social media ought to be considered commercial distribution, since it's generally ad-supported. I mean, broadcast TV is entirely ad-supported too.

E.g. posting on Mastodon is fine because there are no ads, but posting on Facebook/YouTube is not, because they're monetized with ads.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#137

Post by bandyaboot » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

eertami wrote: post #118

mvncleaninst wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those ring cameras are actually crazy. The fact that they are so normalized in the BA is kind of disturbing This lady just moved in next to me. Drives a leased luxury car. Doesn't interact with anyone, she just put up a ring camera (on an apartment door) and doesn't go outside I absolutely can't stand people who put up all of this cringey privacy invading IOT shit, in a relatively nice area on top of that

In Switzerland those cameras are illegal, since there is a right to privacy for all persons. Security cameras can exist on private land or where the need is deemed to be absolutely necessary (eg, high security or high value areas where it is in the public interest to have a camera) - but filming the street from your house fails these tests. Same for dashcams. People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why c…

> People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings.

I don’t find it at all surprising that there’s disagreement about this. You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other. Personal freedom is important and so is personal privacy. Of course there’s going to be controversy and differences from place to place and culture to culture on where the dividing line should exist.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#138

Post by ck425 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #53

hattmall wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

The important difference though is that most security camera's aren't publicly posting the footage. I'd expect most people to be upset if a shop started live streaming everyone that went by the street.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#139

Post by plagiarist » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #55

nullindividual wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"And if you personally cannot draw a perfectly sharp line assigning every event to one of two groups, then no line exists and everything must be in one or the other!"

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#140

Post by yosito » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

rcme wrote: post #116

yosito wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments aren't really rational.

Ok... I'm just taking your arguments (that you have no expectation of privacy in public) and showing you all the ways that you, personally, have an expectation of privacy in public. You have an expectation in a public shower. You have an expectation of privacy when your bits are in public. Why not in other situations?

You're switching the definition of public from publicly observable to publicly owned. Those are not the same thing.