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

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#201

Post by mvncleaninst »

brewdad wrote: post #176
mvncleaninst wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other How exactly is being allowed to record someone else in public without their consent an "important principle"? Especially if the non-consenting person is the subject of the recording?

Why should I need your consent in public? Especially, if it’s incidental. If I follow you around all day, I see a problem. If you’re in the background of a video or photo I took of something else, I can’t see an issue.

There are degrees to this, going up to some random person and photographing their face is more egregious than photographing a friend with the random person in the background

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#202

Post by evandale »

tjpnz wrote: post #25
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.

Whenever this argument comes up I think of what happened to Logan Paul and Justine Sacco. One desecrated what was effectively a burial site and faced few consequences, the other told a dumb joke and had their life destroyed over it. The powerful continue to thrive while the weak suffer.

Justine Sacco is such a sad story, but she is doing better now thankfully. Last I heard she was rehired by the company who fired her when she made the tweet.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#203

Post by nucleardog »

rychco wrote: post #121
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…

I personally DO think it should be illegal for another human’s identifying features to be present in a digital photo without their consent, especially if it is shared online & doubly so if any money is made on it (including advertising)

Unless I’m misunderstanding you you’ve basically just made it illegal to take holiday photos, pictures of popular landmarks, or just generally any photos outside of your house.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#204

Post by DropInIn »

plagiarist wrote: post #157
Gud wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the_donald was banned years ago, along with many other far right subs. Where are these far right wing subs? Right or wrong, I don't really care. The far right has been effectively purged from Reddit.

Maybe a single hive was removed after years of activity. The users from the Donald were not removed. They moved to other subreddits where they persist with the same behaviors. There has certainly not been any sort of purge.

Nah they instead purged those who opposed the hate mongering and called out the trolling...

I've come to hazard a guess they prefer the TD folks because the have higher engagement rates and are more prone to fall for the shady ads that reddit seems to be rife with

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#205

Post by kortilla »

neilv wrote: post #187
marginalia_nu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, the most successful politicians in recent years have adopted the techniques of old-school internet trolls. It goes like this: 1. Do or say something that's a bit edgy and controversial. 2. Pull out a lawn chair as the opposition attempts to stir up a shit storm. 3. Under no circumstances engage with the criticism directed at you, just be somewhere else when anything is coming your way. Never defend or…

I think two-term US President George W. Bush provided one pre-Twitter but modern example of how this effect could work, maybe not intentionally. Here's a bit from a 2004 NYT piece that stuck with me: > That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don…

> In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

It’s incredible how the author was so dumb to take the exact bait and dig in further.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#206

Post by neilv »

kortilla wrote: post #205
neilv wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think two-term US President George W. Bush provided one pre-Twitter but modern example of how this effect could work, maybe not intentionally. Here's a bit from a 2004 NYT piece that stuck with me: > That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don…

> In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community. It’s incredible how the author was so dumb to take the exact bait and dig in further.

Yeah, I almost cut that out of the quote here.

However, during the Bush 43 administration, it might've been coming from the then-underdog position, so maybe less superior than it sounds now, but still bitingly dismissive.

I vaguely remember "reality-based" was a term that was being tossed around, as a criticism of "faith-based" politically-motivated government approaches to problems. I don't know how long that lasted.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#207

Post by ryukoposting »

> Another law being considered in France would make parents responsible for their children’s privacy rights. Le Monde cites, as an example of fame-seeking behavior that France is hoping to discourage, TikTokkers scaring their children by pretending to call the police on them, and an Instagrammer who smeared chocolate on her 4-year-old and convinced them they were covered in feces.

It's a depressing state of affairs that any country has to consider passing laws for this kind of behavior. Shouldn't we, as a society, have enough shame to prevent this, or at least prevent it from becoming trendy?

I worry about how these laws could be bent to authoritarian ends. "You can't record me without my consent" laws have worrisome implications for police encounters. I think (well, honestly, I hope) the populace has the capacity to prevent fame-seeking behavior by shaming it out of existence, rather than leaning on government to punish people for an activity that we would be doing little else to disincentivise.

I truly believe the solution is to not engage with malicious fame-seeking content in any way. Avoid platforms where it is regularly shared. Vocally villify it. It can't be shamed out of existence until we start shaming it.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#208

Post by imiric »

rightbyte wrote: post #162
imiric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't surprise you that online communities are a reflection of human nature. The behaviors we see are the effects of groupthink taken to its extreme. Even in "civilized" forums such as this one, you'll notice people conforming with the group mentality, and deleting their posts if they get downvoted. When there is little to no moderation, and viciousness is acceptable within the group, this behavior will spiral…

Reddit is far worse than human nature, I believe. The upvote and downvote system favours people that are authoritarian (as a personality trait). There is this sect like wibe nowadays on Reddit.

I don't think voting is related. There are some subreddits that do have quality content, but this requires a substantial moderation effort. The *chan sites are even worse than Reddit, and there's no user voting AFAIK. Slashdot had a voting system before Reddit, and the discussion there is mostly civilized. Usenet didn't have a voting system, and the discussions were civilized before Eternal September, when users generally followed a netiquette. HN itself has limited voting and civilized discussion, but the site could get overrun at any point if the userbase grows rapidly, and new users decide not to follow the rules. There have been Reddit-type comments here for a few years now, and it seems to be increasing.

So it's a matter of community morals and values, and laborious moderation efforts to sustain it. Once the community grows large enough, moderating content becomes unmanageable. All large social media sites struggle with this, as they literally can't keep up with the amount of content. This is a scale problem that is unique to the internet.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#209

Post by ryukoposting »

mvncleaninst wrote: post #87

> Still, a blanket law against posting strangers without their consent would be draconian and unworkable. There are too many variables, too many circumstances, and simply too many cases. I disagree. If someone (who is a non public figure) is the subject of a photo/video and has their likeness used without consent by a third party, the third party should be liable. There should be legal recourse for the victim to sue…

Such a law would create the perfect environment for police brutality.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#210

Post by Bukhmanizer »

carlosjobim wrote: post #38
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…

With the internet, citizens can anonymously criticize a politician, publish compromising information on the politician, ridicule the politician, and even call them insulting names! With political power, the politician can restrict the freedom of the citizen, confiscate the property of the citizen, order the citizen to the front lines, declare the citizen a non-human, torture the citizen, execute the citizen, and exte…

“Don’t worry, sane people can still run for office, they just can torture and execute their constituents family” is quite the argument to make..
Post reply on HN